Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 19, 2024 – Gaysuddin Khan, a 30-year-old labourer from Uttar Pradesh, has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a multi-crore online fraud case. The court also strongly criticized the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate that rejected Khan’s bail application.
Background of the Case:
Khan is an accused in C.R. No. 251 of 2023, registered at Cuff Parade Police Station, Mumbai. He is charged with offenses under sections 384, 465, 466, 468, 471, 419, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The prosecution alleges that Khan and his accomplices defrauded a 71-year-old woman and her retired husband of Rs. 4,35,50,277/- by posing as Provident Fund (PF) department officials and promising them a significantly increased PF amount.
Arguments Presented:
Khan’s advocate, Vikas Rathi, argued that the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, and Khan had been in custody for three months. He also cited the bail granted to co-accused and claimed Khan deserved bail on parity and merit.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ajit Chavan opposed the bail, arguing that the investigation was ongoing, the main accused was absconding, and Khan had criminal antecedents. He expressed concerns that Khan’s release would hamper the investigation and lead to similar offenses.
Court’s Decision and Rationale:
Additional Sessions Judge Dr. S.D. Tawshikar rejected Khan’s bail application. The court noted that Khan was a key accused, had technical knowledge used to siphon off money, and had operated a fraud racket from a Delhi hotel room. The court also highlighted the seizure of numerous debit cards, mobile phones, and a laptop from the hotel room.
The court emphasized that the investigation was still ongoing, the main accused was absconding, and Khan had criminal antecedents, indicating a likelihood of him committing similar offenses if released. The court also expressed concern about the rise of online fraud and the need to protect vulnerable senior citizens.
Criticism of Magistrate’s Order:
The court strongly criticized the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate that rejected Khan’s bail application. The court found the order to be “cryptic” and “without single reason,” noting that it simply stated “considering the say of APP application is rejected.”
The court emphasized the importance of reasoned judicial orders, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Y v. State of Rajasthan. The court stated that the Magistrate’s order “sans characteristics of a judicial order” and could “erode the confidence of common man on judicial system.”
The court directed a copy of its order to be forwarded to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, requesting them to apprise the concerned Magistrate of the Supreme Court’s judgment and to ensure that future orders are reasoned.
Significance of the Decision:
This decision highlights the court’s concern about the increasing prevalence of online fraud and the need to protect vulnerable citizens. The court’s strong criticism of the Magistrate’s order underscores the importance of reasoned judicial orders and the need for accountability in the judicial process. This case also shows the courts consideration of the severity of the crime, and the criminal history of the accused when denying bail.