Mumbai, March 5, 2024: A Sessions Court in Mumbai has rejected the bail application of two accused, Manish Vijay Singh Chauhan (27) and Sonu Vijay Singh Chauhan (22), who were arrested in connection with a cyber fraud case involving forgery and fraudulent transactions amounting to over Rs. 28 lakh. The duo, residents of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, were booked under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology (IT) Act.
The Case Background
The case originated when a complainant, Mrs. Subbalaxmi S., lodged a report with the police after receiving a phone call from a person identifying himself as Rahul Shah. The caller claimed to be the proprietor of H.R. Dyechem and informed her that he had a bank account with Bank of India that required an RTGS transfer. By using a forged letterhead and seal of the company, the suspects allegedly induced bank officials to transfer Rs. 28,11,800 to multiple beneficiary accounts.
Upon discovering the fraudulent nature of the transaction, the bank reported the matter to the authorities, leading to the registration of the case under Sections 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged documents as genuine), 419 (impersonation), and 420 (cheating) of the IPC, along with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT Act.
Investigation Findings
The police investigation revealed that Rs. 2 lakh was credited to Sonu Vijay Singh Chauhan’s account, while Rs. 3 lakh was credited to Manish Vijay Singh Chauhan’s account. Additionally, Rs. 1 lakh was transferred via UPI to Manish Singh. The accused allegedly withdrew and transferred portions of the fraudulent funds to other accounts, raising suspicions about their direct involvement in the cyber fraud.
Prosecution’s Argument
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail plea, arguing that the accused could abscond if released, as they are residents of Uttar Pradesh. Additionally, concerns were raised that they might tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Given the severity of the offense, which involves public money and an elaborate cyber fraud scheme, the prosecution emphasized the necessity of their continued custody.
Court’s Ruling
After reviewing the application, prosecution arguments, and case documents, Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne rejected the bail plea on February 27, 2024. The court noted that:
- The accused are linked to a serious financial fraud.
- The charges include Section 467 of the IPC, which carries a punishment of more than seven years.
- The investigation is still in progress, and a charge sheet has not yet been filed.
- The accused, being residents of another state, pose a flight risk.
Considering these factors, the court concluded that granting bail at this stage could jeopardize the investigation.
Legal Implications
This case highlights the growing challenges of cyber fraud and financial scams in India. With digital banking transactions on the rise, authorities are intensifying efforts to crack down on online financial crimes. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in dealing with cyber-related offenses, particularly when significant sums of public money are involved.
As the investigation continues, authorities are expected to trace the final recipients of the fraudulent funds and identify other possible conspirators in the case.