Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 5, 2024 – Sahil Arif Shaikh’s bail application has been rejected by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with an online fraud case registered at the Bandra Police Station.

Background of the Case:

Shaikh was arrested and charged under Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance¹ of common intention) of the Indian Penal² Code (IPC) and Section 66(b)(c) of the Information Technology Act.

The prosecution alleged that Shaikh and co-accused fraudulently obtained Rs. 6,34,261 from the complainant, Heena Jafar Qureshi, between October 3, 2023, and October 7, 2023, by promising her lucrative returns on completing certain online tasks.

Arguments Presented:

Shaikh, through his advocate Mohammad Yusuf, argued that:

• He was falsely implicated and made a scapegoat.
• Co-accused were already granted bail by the Metropolitan Magistrate, entitling him to bail on grounds of parity.
• He had been in jail since January 31, 2024.
• He was the sole breadwinner of his family.
• He was ready to abide by any court conditions.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ashwini Raykar, opposed the bail application, arguing that:

• If released, Shaikh would commit similar offenses, pressure witnesses, and abscond.
• A substantial amount of Rs. 2,18,81,864 was credited to his ICICI bank account on October 4, 2023, indicating his active involvement.
• He was a resident of Chandrapur, increasing the risk of absconding.
• The investigation was still pending, and one accused was absconding.
• He was a beneficiary of the fraudulent transactions.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge S.N. Patil rejected Shaikh’s bail application. The court considered the following factors:

• Large Bank Transactions: The court highlighted the substantial amount of Rs. 2,18,81,864 credited to Shaikh’s bank account, for which he provided no explanation.
• Active Participation: The large bank transactions indicated Shaikh’s active participation in the alleged offense.
• Risk of Absconding: Shaikh’s residence in Chandrapur raised concerns about the risk of him absconding.
• Ongoing Investigation: The investigation was still pending, and one accused was absconding.
• No Parity: Despite the co-accused being granted bail, the court found that Shaikh was not entitled to bail on grounds of parity, considering his active involvement and the large bank transactions.
• Nature of Offense: The court considered the nature of the offense and concluded that releasing Shaikh on bail would not be appropriate.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision underscores the court’s scrutiny of large financial transactions and its assessment of an accused’s active participation in financial fraud cases. The court’s rejection of bail on grounds of parity, despite co-accused being granted bail, highlights the importance of considering the specific role and involvement of each accused. The court’s concern about the risk of absconding, particularly in cases involving out-of-station residents, also influenced its decision. This case shows how large bank transactions, without a proper explanation, can heavily weigh against an accused in a bail hearing.