Mumbai, Maharashtra – March 2, 2024 – Mufid Khan, a 31-year-old tailor from Rajasthan, has had his bail application rejected by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with an online sweet shop fraud case registered at the Gamdevi Police Station.

Background of the Case:

Khan was arrested and charged under Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 66(c) (identity theft) and 66(d) (cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology¹ (IT) Act in connection with Crime No. 133/2023.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, Smt. Kunjani Ishwar Avantramane, was looking to purchase sweets online for the Holi festival. She found a sweet shop called “Tiwari Brothers” online and contacted a number listed on the site. She was instructed to place an order via WhatsApp and make a payment of Rs. 3,000 through Google Pay. Subsequently, she was tricked into entering a specific number into Google Pay, which resulted in two deductions of Rs. 39,506 each from her bank account.

Arguments Presented:

Khan, through his advocate Sunil Pande, argued that:

• He was not served with a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which is mandatory as per the Supreme Court ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
• He was in police custody for 11 days with no progress in the investigation.
• He himself was a victim and unaware of the facts.
• His name was not in the FIR, and no specific role was attributed to him.
• No recovery was made from him.
• All evidence was documentary and electronic, and already seized by the police.
• He was not a beneficiary of the defrauded money.
• Section 420 of the IPC did not apply as there was no initial inducement.
• Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the IT Act did not apply to him.
• There was no eyewitness or concrete evidence against him.
• The IT Act, as a special act, should prevail over the IPC, a general act, citing several case laws.
• He also cited case law regarding bail not being for the recovery of funds, and that criminal history alone is not enough to deny bail.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ranjana Budhwant, argued that:

• A notice under Section 41(1)(b) of the CrPC was served to Khan.
• Khan was involved in similar offenses (Crime Nos. 22/2023, 24/2023, 26/2023, and 58/2023).
• The investigation was ongoing, and the charge sheet had not been filed.
• Khan, along with his uncle and another individual, had committed the offense.
• Khan was a resident of Rajasthan and likely to commit further offenses if released.
• The defrauded money was yet to be recovered.
• Online fraud crimes are a serious concern, impacting public trust and economic growth, citing the Amit Sharma v. State case.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge N.P. Tribhuwan rejected Khan’s bail application. The court considered the following factors:

• Multiple Similar Offenses: Khan’s involvement in multiple similar offenses indicated a pattern of criminal activity.
• Ongoing Investigation: The investigation was still in progress, and the charge sheet had not been filed.
• Absconding Co-accused: One of the co-accused was absconding.
• Risk of Further Offenses: Khan, being a resident of Rajasthan, was likely to commit further offenses if released.
• Unrecovered Funds: The defrauded money was yet to be recovered.
• Seriousness of Online Fraud: The court acknowledged the seriousness of online fraud, its impact on public trust, and its hindrance to economic growth.
• Planned and Cultivated Act: The court deemed the accused’s actions to be a well-planned and cultivated act that harmed society.

The court concluded that it was not desirable to release Khan on bail at the initial stage of the investigation.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision highlights the court’s consideration of multiple similar offenses, the ongoing nature of the investigation, and the seriousness of online fraud when determining bail applications. The court’s emphasis on protecting public trust and preventing further offenses underscores the gravity of cybercrimes and the need for stringent measures. The court also showed the negative impact that online fraud has on the economy.