Mumbai, India – February 13, 2024 – Vinod Kashi Ram Kumar, a 37-year-old resident of Delhi, has been granted bail by a Mumbai Sessions Court in connection with a cyber fraud case. Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge S.D. Kulkarni, presiding over Court Room No. 66, granted bail in Bail Application No. 332 of 2024, citing parity with co-accused who were already released on bail and the near completion of the police investigation.
Kumar was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 03/2023 registered with DCB CID Unit-3 (Wadala Police Station, Mumbai, C.R. No. 5/2023), facing charges under Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy),1 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)2 of the Indian Penal3 Code (IPC), as well as Sections 66(c) and (d) of the Information Technology Act.
The Alleged Fraud and Arrest:
The prosecution alleges that Kumar and his accomplices were involved in a cyber fraud case. Kumar was arrested on January 11, 2024, and has been in judicial custody since January 14, 2024.
Defense Arguments:
Kumar’s defense argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated, and that the case was based on a concocted story. They emphasized that no money was recovered from him, he had no prior criminal record, and the investigation was almost complete. They also highlighted that co-accused had already been granted bail, claiming parity.
Prosecution Objections:
The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that Kumar had not cooperated with the investigation despite receiving a notice under Section 41(A)(1) of the CrPC. They also claimed he was a flight risk, as he was a resident of Delhi, and that the misappropriated funds were yet to be recovered. They expressed concerns that Kumar’s release could lead to witness intimidation and tampering with evidence.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Kulkarni, after considering the arguments and evidence, granted bail to Kumar. The court acknowledged the prosecution’s concerns but emphasized that Kumar had been in custody for a significant period, allowing ample time for the investigation.
“It is a matter of record that applicant/accused was arrested on 11/01/2024. He has undergone police custody and since 14/01/2024 he is in judicial custody. So sufficient time or opportunity available for the investigation officer to seize whatever yet to be seized from the applicant/accused,” Judge Kulkarni stated in his order.
The court also noted that the majority of the investigation was complete and that the trial would take considerable time to conclude.
“The majority part of the investigation is already over. The applicant/accused is in judicial custody since long. So it will take considerable time to commence and conclude the trial. It is not just and proper to keep the accused behind the bar till conclusion of trial. Therefore, accused is entitled to be released on the bail,” Judge Kulkarni observed.
The court also considered the parity argument, citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation, where bail was granted based on parity.
Bail Conditions:
Kumar was granted bail on the following conditions:
- He must furnish a personal bond and surety bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
- He must report to the concerned police station on the first Saturday of every month.
- He must remain present when called by the investigating officer with prior notice.
- He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
- He was granted provisional cash bail and must furnish sureties within four weeks.
- He must not leave India without prior permission from the court.
- He must not involve in similar offenses in the future.
- Bail before the learned trial court.
Implications:
This case highlights the court’s consideration of factors such as parity with co-accused, the completion of the investigation, and the accused’s period of custody when deciding on bail applications. It also underscores the court’s willingness to impose conditions to ensure the accused’s presence during the trial and prevent witness intimidation. The court also showed that just because someone is from another city, it does not automatically mean they are a flight risk.