Mumbai, March 6, 2024 – Vishwas Vijay Shetye, accused in an online fraud case involving crores of rupees, has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay. Additional Sessions Judge R.R. Patare (Court Room No. 1) issued the order on March 5, 2024.
Shetye was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 468/2023, registered at the Byculla Police Station, for offenses under Sections 419 (cheating by personation) and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),1 and Sections 66-C (identity theft) and 66-D (cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology Act.2
Background and Allegations:
The case was registered based on a complaint by Nikita Kariwal, who alleged she was lured into an online job opportunity via WhatsApp. She was promised a monthly salary and commission for completing tasks, including booking air tickets. She deposited significant amounts of money, totaling Rs. 6,68,764, through various online payment methods but received no returns. The prosecution alleges that transactions of Rs. 1.17 crores were made through Shetye’s bank account, and he received Rs. 5,00,000 as commission.
Arguments Presented:
Advocate Deepak S. Paikrao, representing Shetye, argued that there was no evidence to connect his client to the offense, the investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had been filed. He claimed Shetye was falsely implicated and had no intention to cheat anyone. He cited several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Siroya opposed the bail, arguing that the allegations were serious, there was evidence connecting Shetye to the offense, and there was a risk of witness tampering and flight.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Patare acknowledged the cited Supreme Court judgments, which state that personal liberty should not be deprived unnecessarily and that bail is the general rule. However, he emphasized that each case must be decided based on its unique facts.
The court noted that the prosecution presented evidence showing Rs. 1.17 crores were transferred through Shetye’s bank account, and he received Rs. 5,00,000 as commission. The court found this evidence sufficient to connect Shetye to the alleged offense.
The court highlighted the rising prevalence of online fraud and the severe impact on victims. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the substantial amounts involved, the court concluded that the risks of witness tampering and flight could not be ruled out.
The court distinguished the facts of the cited Supreme Court judgments from the present case, finding them not applicable.
Decision:
The court rejected Shetye’s bail application, concluding that the allegations were serious, there was evidence linking him to the offense, and there were valid concerns about witness tampering and flight.
Order Details:
The order was dictated, typed, and signed on March 5, 2024, and uploaded on March 6, 2024.
This decision reflects the court’s consideration of the specific evidence linking Shetye to the alleged fraud, the seriousness of the offense, and the potential risks to the investigation and witnesses.