Mumbai, Maharashtra – March 18, 2024 – Saajan Dukharam Kewat’s bail application has been rejected by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with an online investment fraud case registered at the Dongari Police Station.

Background of the Case:

Kewat was arrested and charged under Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468¹ (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document)² read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and Section 66(D) (cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in connection with C.R. No. 265 of 2023.

The prosecution alleged that Kewat and co-accused defrauded the complainant of Rs. 1.56 crore through a fake online investment scheme, using a dating website and Telegram to lure the complainant.

Arguments Presented:

Kewat, through his advocate Zaid Siddiqui, argued that:

• He was falsely implicated and was himself a victim.
• His mobile, Telegram account, and SIM card were misused by co-accused Ashish Khere.
• Seven co-accused had already been granted bail by the Metropolitan Magistrate.
• The investigation against him was practically over.
• He cited a Supreme Court judgment (Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi) to argue that once the Information Technology Act is invoked, the IPC provisions should not apply.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (Addl.P.P.) Ajit Chavan, strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that:

• The investigation was still in progress.
• Kewat was the mastermind of the offense.
• He opened several bank accounts in the names of co-accused to facilitate the fraud.
• A large amount of money was siphoned off through multiple bank accounts.
• Many co-accused were yet to be arrested.
• Granting bail would hamper the ongoing investigation.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge Dr. S.D. Tawshikar rejected Kewat’s bail application. The court considered the following factors:

• Lead Role Allegations: The court found that Kewat appeared to have a lead role in the alleged offense, as his Telegram account and mobile were used to cheat the complainant.
• Ongoing Investigation: The investigation was still in progress, with many co-accused yet to be arrested and the money trail not fully traced.
• Cybercrime Concerns: The court expressed concerns about the increasing prevalence of cyber and online frauds and the need for stringent measures against such offenses.
• Large-Scale Syndicate: The investigating officer informed the court that a large-scale syndicate was involved, operating across multiple states.
• Parity Argument Rejected: The court rejected the parity argument, stating that Kewat’s role was different from that of the co-accused who were granted bail.
• Supreme Court Judgment Inapplicable: The court found the cited Supreme Court judgment inapplicable, as it dealt with obscenity, while the present case involved fraud, forgery, and impersonation.
• Risk of Hampering Investigation: The court concluded that releasing Kewat on bail at this stage would hamper the ongoing investigation.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision highlights the court’s cautious approach to bail applications in cybercrime cases, particularly when the accused is alleged to have played a lead role and the investigation is ongoing. The court’s emphasis on the need for stringent measures against cyber frauds reflects the growing concern about such offenses. The court also made it clear that parity with co-accused is not automatically granted, and that the specifics of each accused’s involvement must be considered. The court also clarified that precedents regarding technology based crimes must be carefully reviewed to ensure they are applicable to the current situation.