Mumbai, August 8, 2022 (Greater Mumbai Sessions Court): The Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Vishal S. Gaike, presiding over Court Room No. 22 at the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai, has rejected the bail application of Vikas Sureshchand Sharma @ Vikas Sureshchand and Salman Aanjur Ahmad, accused Nos. 2 and 4 respectively, in connection with an online credit card fraud case. The case, Crime No. 28 of 2022, is registered at the N. M. Joshi Marg Police Station for offenses punishable under Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code¹ (IPC), and Sections 66(C) (identity theft) and 66(D) (cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology Act.²

The prosecution’s case alleges that the complainant, Manohar Sitaram Govalkar, a resident of Navi Mumbai, was defrauded of ₹96,876/- through the fraudulent use of his credit card details. According to the complaint, on January 27, 2022, a woman claiming to be from the State Bank of India’s Credit Card Department called the complainant, seeking to provide information about credit card protection. During this call, she allegedly fraudulently obtained the last four digits of his credit card, which was subsequently used to withdraw the aforementioned amount from an ATM.

The Investigating Officer’s report revealed that an accomplice of the applicants, Sonukumar, held an account in I.D.F.C. First Bank. The accused initially used a MobiKwik Pay Wallet to transfer money from the complainant’s account. Upon Sonukumar’s arrest, he disclosed that the applicants were operating a Call Centre along with other accused individuals. Further investigation led to the arrest of other accused and the revelation of their roles in the crime. A panchanama was conducted at the alleged illegal Call Centre in the presence of witnesses, and equipment used for its operation was seized.

The investigation indicated that applicant No. 1, Vikas Sharma, was involved in running the Call Centre and used to transfer fraudulently obtained amounts into Sonukumar’s account. Applicants Salman Manjur Ahmad and a co-accused, Vishal Phulchand Rathore, would then allegedly withdraw this money from ATMs and give it to Vikas Sharma, who would, in turn, pay them a commission. Another co-accused, Sachin, is yet to be arrested. The investigation also revealed that Vikas Sharma would impersonate a woman’s voice to deceive the victims. As the applicants are residents of Delhi with no permanent address in Mumbai and allegedly did not cooperate during police custody, the prosecution argued that they posed a risk of absconding, non-availability for further investigation and trial, and potential to threaten witnesses and commit similar offenses if released on bail.

The learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Prasad Wagh, argued that his clients were innocent and falsely implicated. He stated that the applicants’ family members were willing to pay the defrauded amount of ₹96,876/- to the complainant and highlighted that the provisions invoked against the applicants were compoundable. He also asserted that no further seizures were necessary and that the applicants were ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court if granted bail.

During the hearing, the complainant, Manohar Sitaram Govalkar, appeared and filed an intervention application and an affidavit. He stated that if the amount of ₹96,876/- was returned by the applicants’ relatives, he would have no grievance against them. He orally confirmed in court that the relatives had paid him ₹1 Lakh and that he had no objection to the applicants being granted bail.

However, the learned A.P.P., Mr. J. N. Suryawanshi, vehemently opposed the application, arguing that the complainant was not the only victim of the applicants’ online fraud. He submitted that the investigation was ongoing and could reveal other similar offenses committed by the applicants and the absconding co-accused. He also raised concerns about the applicants absconding and not being available for further investigation and trial. While acknowledging that Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act are compoundable, he cited the proviso in Section 77-A of the said Act, which prohibits compounding if the offense affects the socio-economic conditions of the country.

After perusing the FIR, case diary, and other documents, Additional Sessions Judge Shri Vishal S. Gaike observed that applicant No. 1 was allegedly running an illegal Call Centre and impersonating a woman’s voice to commit online fraud. Applicant No. 2 was allegedly involved in withdrawing the siphoned-off money from victims’ accounts and handing it over to applicant No. 1. Despite the complainant settling the matter with the applicants’ relatives, the court highlighted the strong possibility of other similar crimes committed through the alleged illegal Call Centre coming to light during further investigation.

The court emphasized the learned A.P.P.’s point regarding the proviso in Section 77-A of the Information Technology Act, stating that the court should not compound offenses that affect the socio-economic conditions of the country. The court noted the significant increase in online fraud in recent years, with numerous unsuspecting victims being cheated daily, depriving them of their hard-earned money. The court deemed it necessary to deal with this issue sternly. The Investigating Officer’s report indicated the applicants’ lack of cooperation during police custody and their residency in Delhi, raising concerns about their availability for further investigation and trial and the possibility of them absconding.

Considering the nature of the allegations against the applicants and the ongoing investigation, the court was not inclined to grant bail.

Consequently, the court passed the following order:

ORDER

Bail Application No. 1876 of 2022 is hereby rejected and disposed off.

The order was dictated and transcribed on August 8, 2022, and signed on the same date by Additional Sessions Judge Shri Vishal S. Gaike. This decision means that Vikas Sureshchand Sharma and Salman Aanjur Ahmad will remain in custody pending further legal proceedings in the online credit card fraud case, despite the complainant’s settlement, due to the seriousness of the alleged organized crime and the ongoing investigation into potential wider implications.