Mumbai, March 2, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Vinod Kashi Ram Kumar, accused in a cyber fraud case. Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge S.D. Kulkarni, presiding over Court Room No. 66, allowed Kumar’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 332 of 2024), citing the near-completion of the investigation and the principle of parity, as co-accused were already granted bail.

Kumar was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 03/2023, registered with DCB CID Unit-3 (Wadala Police Station, C.R. No. 5/2023), for offenses 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) (identity theft) and 66(d) (cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology Act.⁴

The Allegations and FIR:

The prosecution alleged that Kumar was involved in a cyber fraud case. However, specific details of the fraud were not provided in the order. The prosecution argued that Kumar had not cooperated with the investigation despite receiving a notice under section 41(A)(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), that he was a flight risk being a resident of another state (Delhi), and that misappropriated funds were yet to be recovered from him.

Defense Arguments:

Kumar, through his advocate Anees Shaikh, argued that he was falsely implicated based on a concocted story. He claimed he was not a beneficiary of the crime and that no money was recovered from him. He was arrested on mere suspicion, had no criminal antecedents, and nothing remained to be seized from him. He emphasized that the investigation was nearly complete. He also cited the Supreme Court judgment in P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2019 SC 5272), arguing that since co-accused were already granted bail, he was entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Lade, opposed the bail application. They argued that Kumar had not cooperated with the investigation, posed a flight risk, was a beneficiary of the crime, and that funds were yet to be recovered from him. They also expressed concerns about witness tampering and the possibility of Kumar repeating the crime.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

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

• Parity: The court acknowledged the argument of parity, noting that co-accused were already granted bail.
• Completed Investigation: The court noted that Kumar was arrested on January 11, 2024, had undergone police custody, and was in judicial custody since January 14, 2024, indicating sufficient time for the investigation.
• Recovery of Funds: The court stated that the recovery of funds did not necessitate Kumar’s custodial interrogation.
• Flight Risk: The court dismissed the argument of flight risk based solely on Kumar’s residence in Delhi.
• Further Investigation: The court stated that further investigation could be conducted without keeping Kumar in custody.
• Trial Delay: The court acknowledged the potential delay in the trial and concluded that it was not just to keep Kumar in custody until the trial’s conclusion.

Judge Kulkarni concluded that, considering the parity argument and the near-completion of the investigation, Kumar was entitled to bail.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Kumar bail on the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Bond (P.B.) and Surety Bond (S.B.) of ₹50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• He must attend the concerned police station on the first Saturday of every month until further orders.
• He must remain present when called by the investigating officer with prior notice.
• He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses and evidence.
• Provisional cash bail of the same amount was allowed, with the condition that he must furnish surety within four weeks, failing which the cash bail would be forfeited.
• He must not leave India without prior court permission.
• He must not involve in similar types of offenses in the future.
• Bail must be furnished before the learned Trial Court.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Parity: The court applied the principle of parity, considering the bail granted to co-accused.
• Completed Investigation: The court considered the near-completion of the investigation and the availability of sufficient time for the investigating agency.
• Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court imposed stringent conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and prevent any interference with the investigation.
• Balancing Rights and Interests: The court balanced the rights of the accused with the interests of justice by granting bail subject to conditions.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in considering bail applications in cyber fraud cases, particularly when the investigation is nearly complete and the accused can be released on parity grounds.