Mumbai, Maharashtra – July 18, 2022 – Vivek Sunil Sabharwal has been denied bail in a cyber fraud case registered at North Region Cyber Police Station (C.R. No. 47 of 2021). The Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. A.A. Joglekar, of the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay, rejected Sabharwal’s bail application (Bail Application No. 932 of 2022) citing his habitual involvement in similar offenses and the lack of substantial changes in circumstances since the rejection of his previous bail application.
Background of the Case:
Sabharwal was arrested and charged under Sections 420 (cheating), 419 (cheating by personation), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)1 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)2 and Sections 66(C) (identity theft) and 66(D) (cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology Act.3
Allegations and Arrest:
According to the prosecution, Sabharwal impersonated a bank official and obtained the complainant’s bank account details, Aadhaar card, and PAN card under the pretext of KYC verification. He then updated his own mobile number on the complainant’s account and withdrew Rs. 816,258. During the investigation, it was revealed that Sabharwal had used a similar modus operandi in other states and had obtained fake email IDs of nationalized banks from an accomplice, Biren Patel.
Defense Arguments:
Mr. Bhavke, representing Sabharwal, argued that his client was falsely implicated and arrested merely on suspicion. He pointed out that Sabharwal’s full name was not mentioned in the FIR and that the case relied on circumstantial electronic evidence, which he argued was secondary evidence and inadmissible. He also argued that there was no legally admissible evidence linking Sabharwal to the withdrawal of funds and that the chargesheet had been filed, negating the need for further detention.
Prosecution’s Counter-Arguments:
Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), opposed the bail application, stating that Sabharwal was a habitual offender involved in similar offenses in other states, including a case registered at BKC Cyber Police Station. He emphasized that Sabharwal had prepared forged email IDs of nationalized banks with the help of Biren Patel and that the withdrawn amount had not been recovered. He also expressed concerns about Sabharwal absconding and tampering with evidence.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Judge Joglekar noted that the amount was withdrawn from the complainant’s account and that Sabharwal had taken a technical defense regarding circumstantial evidence. The court also highlighted that Sabharwal had used the same mobile number to update the KYC information, which he failed to explain.
“On meticulous examination of the case record it evinces to myself that admittedly, the alleged amount held in the savings account of the informant was withdrawn by the Applicant/accused and in this regard a mere technical defence has been taken by the Applicant/accused pertaining to the circumstantial/secondary evidence. Apart from the same it is also evident that the mobile number used by the Applicant/accused while allegedly updating the KYC information with the bank authorities was one and the same and there is no explanation with regard to this particular fact,” Judge Joglekar stated in his order.
The court emphasized that it was required to see whether a prima facie case existed and that a roving inquiry into the merits of the prosecution case was not necessary at the bail stage. It also noted that Sabharwal had previously filed a bail application before the magistrate court, which was rejected, and that he had failed to show a substantial change in circumstances.
“Further it is also evident that the Applicant/accused had preferred a bail application before the learned magistrate court upon same set of facts postfiling of chargesheet and the said application was rejected by the learned magistrate court. Therefore, post rejection of the bail application by the magistrate court, the Applicant/accused has failed to propel out such a substantial change in circumstance in order to avail the benefit of enlargement on bail,” Judge Joglekar stated.
The court concluded that Sabharwal was involved in generating fake IDs and using SIM cards and bank accounts in other people’s names, establishing his role in the offense. The court also noted the high amount withdrawn and the lack of recovery.
Order:
The court rejected Sabharwal’s bail application.
Significance of the Ruling:
This ruling highlights the court’s consideration of the accused’s habitual involvement in similar offenses and the lack of changed circumstances when deciding bail applications in cyber fraud cases. The court’s decision underscores that in cases where the accused has a history of similar offenses and fails to present substantial changes in circumstances after the rejection of a previous bail application, bail may be denied.
Key Factors in the Bail Denial:
- Sabharwal’s involvement in similar offenses in other states.
- Lack of substantial changes in circumstances after the rejection of his previous bail application.
- High amount withdrawn and lack of recovery.
- Sabharwal’s role in generating fake IDs and using SIM cards and bank accounts in other people’s names.
Future Proceedings:
The trial will proceed in the Sessions Court, where the prosecution will be required to prove the charges against Sabharwal and his accomplices beyond a reasonable doubt. The court will monitor the case closely and ensure that justice is served.