Mumbai, January 30, 2024 – In a notable ruling, the City Civil and Sessions Court in Greater Bombay denied bail to Rahul Vinod Dogra, a 33-year-old web designer from Agra, accused of participating in an online fraud scheme involving fake websites designed to scam unsuspecting customers. Dogra, who was arrested in September 2023, faces charges of cheating, forgery, and cyber fraud under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology (IT) Act, based on allegations of his involvement in duping a Mumbai resident out of over ₹90,000.
Details of the Case
The case was initiated when Mumbai resident Smt. Mehru Meenu Billimoria lodged a complaint with the Gaondevi Police Station on August 15, 2023. Billimoria alleged that she encountered the fake phone number of “Tiwari Brothers Sweet Shop” while searching for a sweet shop online. Upon contacting the number, the individual on the other end allegedly persuaded her to make multiple payments through QR codes, leading to a total debit of ₹90,710 from her bank account.
According to the police, Billimoria initially placed a small order, but after the caller claimed that her initial payment had not been received, he instructed her to scan a QR code and enter a specific code on her mobile payment app. Despite multiple attempts to clarify the transaction, Billimoria ultimately found that several large sums were deducted from her account. She realized she had been defrauded and subsequently filed a complaint.
Prosecution’s Stand
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Mrs. Ranjana Budhwant, argued that Dogra was integral to the scheme. They alleged he had designed fake websites that misled customers and assisted in the fraudulent transaction. The police’s investigation indicated that Dogra might be part of a broader network of cybercriminals operating under the guise of legitimate businesses.
The APP emphasized the severity of the crime, particularly in the context of the growing menace of cyber frauds and the need to safeguard public confidence in online transactions. Additionally, they highlighted that Dogra’s alleged co-conspirator, Rakesh Tiwari, remains at large and that other suspects involved in similar scams are also yet to be apprehended. The prosecution asserted that releasing Dogra could jeopardize ongoing investigations and increase the risk of further crimes, especially since Dogra allegedly played a central role in setting up the fake websites used for such scams.
Defense’s Argument
Represented by Advocate Mr. Dilip Kokil, Dogra maintained his innocence, contending that he had no direct involvement in the fraud itself. His defense argued that he had merely designed websites at the request of another individual, whom he claimed to be unaware was part of a criminal operation. Dogra’s counsel emphasized that Dogra was paid only ₹3,500 for web design work and had no share in any proceeds from the fraudulent activity. Citing previous case law, the defense argued that a failure to honor contractual obligations, without clear proof of intent to defraud, does not constitute cheating. Dogra’s lawyer pointed to a Supreme Court ruling in Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2023), which observed that a breach of contract does not necessarily imply criminal intent.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Presiding Judge N.P. Tribhuwan denied Dogra’s bail, underscoring the serious implications of cyber fraud. In his ruling, Judge Tribhuwan expressed concerns over the growing prevalence of online scams and their impact on public trust in digital transactions. The court echoed sentiments from a 2023 Delhi High Court ruling, which highlighted that widespread fraud in online transactions erodes public confidence in digital finance, consequently hampering economic growth and innovation.
Judge Tribhuwan noted the need for strict action against digital crimes, emphasizing that such scams target innocent individuals and contribute to a loss of confidence in online services. The court found that the allegations, evidence, and the potential for other suspects to remain unapprehended all pointed toward the necessity of denying bail.
Key Points in Court’s Decision
The court outlined several factors influencing its decision:
- Nature and Gravity of the Offense: The court emphasized the non-bailable nature of the crimes, including cheating and forgery, aggravated by their digital execution.
- Public Impact of Cyber Fraud: Judge Tribhuwan stressed that these scams undermine trust in digital transactions, which can deter people from participating in the digital economy.
- Pending Investigation: The court noted that additional co-accused, including the main suspect, are still unaccounted for, and the funds stolen from the complainant have yet to be recovered.
- Network of Criminal Activity: Evidence suggested that Dogra’s alleged activities were part of a larger, organized cyber fraud operation targeting various victims.
Legal and Social Implications
The case has broader implications for India’s judicial response to online fraud. Cybercrime, especially through the misuse of online platforms and digital payment systems, has escalated as digital commerce grows. As the court highlighted, strict enforcement against such offenses is essential to protect society and deter potential offenders. The ruling reflects judicial support for strengthening punitive measures to curb online fraud and reinforce trust in digital finance.
Conclusion
With Dogra’s bail denied, he will remain in judicial custody as the investigation continues. This case exemplifies the judiciary’s proactive approach in addressing cybercrime, especially cases involving scams that exploit the public’s trust in digital transactions.
