New Delhi, February 2, 2024 — In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has denied bail to Ajit Kumar, also known as Praveen Kumar Mishra, the primary accused in a high-profile cyber fraud case. The decision was rendered by Hon’ble Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who underscored the seriousness of the allegations and the accused’s habitual involvement in similar crimes. The bail application was registered under BAIL APPLN. 387/2024, and the ruling reflects the court’s stringent stance on cyber fraud and forgery.
Case Background
The case, registered under FIR No. 38/2023 at the Cyber Police Station West, Delhi, involves multiple charges under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The complainant, Ms. Shobha Talwar, reported being defrauded of approximately Rs. 40 lakhs. The fraud began on March 28, 2023, when Ms. Talwar received a call from a man identifying himself as Rajendra Prasad, offering an insurance policy. Subsequently, she was instructed to deposit various amounts into an HDFC Bank account belonging to co-accused Vipin.
Over the following weeks, another individual, Narayan Acharya, contacted her, demanding additional funds under various pretexts. Ms. Talwar complied, paying various sums in cash to Acharya’s representative, Sourabh, with promises of receipts to be provided later. On April 24, 2023, when a cheque for Rs. 65,70,000, drawn on her account, was dishonored due to the account being blocked, the fraud was uncovered, leading to the registration of the FIR.
Court Proceedings
The bail application, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), was argued by Mr. Amit Kumar Rohela, counsel for Ajit Kumar. Rohela contended that co-accused individuals had already been granted bail and that no admissible evidence directly linked Kumar to the fraud. He asserted that Kumar’s arrest on July 6, 2023, was based on false disclosure statements from co-accused persons and that the alleged recovery of incriminating material from Kumar had no connection to the case.
Prosecution’s Argument
Opposing the bail plea, Mr. Amol Sinha, the Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) for the state, highlighted the incriminating evidence recovered from Kumar’s possession, which included fake Aadhaar cards, bank passbooks, cheque books, and stamps of various banks. Sinha argued that Kumar had played a pivotal role in the conspiracy, which involved preparing fake documents, opening fraudulent bank accounts, and deceiving innocent victims.
Court’s Findings
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma meticulously examined the chargesheet and the material evidence. The investigation revealed that co-accused Abhishek prepared fake PDF documents at the behest of Aman Shrivastava, who sent them to the complainant. These documents facilitated the opening of bank accounts in Vipin’s name, with Kumar and co-accused Himanshu playing key roles. Kumar allegedly altered Vipin’s Aadhaar card address to avoid detection, and multiple fraudulent transactions were conducted through these accounts.
Further investigation disclosed that Kumar was implicated in six other similar cases across Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of IPC, indicating a pattern of habitual criminal behavior. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, awaited at the time of the ruling, was expected to provide additional evidence regarding the forgery of Vipin’s Aadhaar card.
Rationale for Bail Denial
Justice Sharma, in her oral judgment, emphasized the gravity of the offences and the rising incidence of cyber fraud, particularly targeting vulnerable individuals unfamiliar with online transactions. She underscored the necessity of stringent measures against perpetrators to prevent such crimes. The court acknowledged the pre-trial stage of the case and the accused’s involvement in multiple similar offences as grounds for denying bail.
Conclusion
The court concluded that granting bail to Ajit Kumar at this juncture would not be appropriate given the serious nature of the allegations and his involvement in ongoing investigations in multiple jurisdictions. The bail application was accordingly dismissed, with the court clarifying that this decision should not influence the trial’s outcome.
The Delhi High Court’s decision reflects a broader judicial trend of adopting a hard stance against cybercrime, ensuring that those involved in fraudulent activities face rigorous scrutiny and legal consequences. This case serves as a precedent and a warning to potential offenders about the severe repercussions of cyber fraud and forgery.
For more detailed coverage and updates on this and other legal matters, stay tuned to our legal news section.
Document Reference: BAIL APPLN. 387/2024, Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Date of Decision: February 2, 2024