Mumbai, March 19, 2024 – The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act at the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, has denied bail to Ajay Kisanrao Munde, accused in a cyber fraud case. Designated Judge Aditee Uday Kadam, presiding over Court Room No. 7, rejected Munde’s bail application (Bail Application No. 473 of 2024), citing his habitual offender status and the seriousness of the offense.

Munde was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 10 of 2024, registered at Kanjur Marg Police Station, for offenses under sections 419 (cheating by personation) and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),¹ as well as sections 66(C) (identity theft) and 66(D) (cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, between December 28, 2023, and December 29, 2023, Munde allegedly hacked the Facebook account of the complainant’s friend and contacted the complainant. He falsely claimed that her obscene photos had been circulated and sent her a link. Under the pretext of verifying the photos, he obtained a selfie from her and hacked her account. He then extorted ₹50,996 from her, promising to delete the photos. The money was transferred to a UPI account belonging to Rohit Kshirsagar.

Defense Arguments:

Munde, through his advocate Harshali Bhavsar, argued that he was falsely implicated and had no involvement in the alleged offense. He claimed that the actual offender’s name was mentioned in the report but had not been arrested. He argued that no prima facie case was made out against him and that he had been in custody for a substantial period.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by SPP Seema Deshpande, opposed the bail application. They argued that the offense was serious, the investigation was ongoing, and Munde was a habitual offender with a similar case (C.R. No. 124/23) pending at V.P. Road Police Station.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Kadam, after reviewing the record and hearing arguments, made the following observations:

• Electronic Evidence: The court acknowledged that the offense was committed using electronic devices and social media, making the investigation complex.
• Mobile Number Link: The court noted that Munde’s mobile number was linked to the account number used in the fraudulent transaction.
• Witness Identification: The court mentioned that a witness identified Munde as the person who requested ₹50,000, which was transferred to his account via Google Pay.
• Seriousness of Offense: The court emphasized the seriousness and heinous nature of the offense.
• Habitual Offender Status: The court considered the prosecution’s claim that Munde was a habitual offender, citing the pending case at V.P. Road Police Station.
• Investigation Stage: The court noted that the investigation was ongoing.

Judge Kadam concluded that there was no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court and that Munde’s application lacked merit.

Order:

The court rejected Munde’s bail application.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• The seriousness of cyber fraud offenses, particularly those involving extortion and exploitation.
• The importance of considering the accused’s criminal history and habitual offender status.
• The court’s reluctance to grant bail when the investigation is ongoing and the offense is complex.
• The courts consideration of electronic evidence, and witness identification.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, especially in cases involving cybercrime and repeat offenders.