The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of Budhisar Shikari, accused of cyber fraud of Rs16,78,380/- .
A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Budhisar Shikari.
By means of the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, applicant, namely, Budhisar Shikari, who is involved in Case under Sections 406, 419, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C and Sections 66, 66-C & 66-D of Information Technology Act, Police Station- Cyber Crime Police, District Prayagraj seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
The prosecution story is as follows:- that a first information report was lodged by the informant, namely, Ghanshyam Ji at P.S Haja to the effect that on 11.9.2020, the informant through YONO application of his mobile, which was attached with Account is said to have recharged his Airtel mobile for an amount to Rs 598/- but the mobile could not be recharged even amount of Rs 598/- was deducted from his account, and a complaint to this effect was verbally made to the Bank after a week.
It is alleged that the Bank manager, namely, Avinash Shukla told the informant to make a complaint about this in the Airtel office.
It is also alleged that after a week, informant made complaint about the deduction of money in the Airtel office, and when the money is not returned to his account, after 25-27 days, informant again visited Airtel office where he met one Prashant Shukla and talked to him, who told the informant to make complaint wherever he wants to do.
It is further alleged that on 15.10.2020 at around 11.45 a.m informant is said to have received a call from an unknown mobile number, who revealed his name as Rahul and said to return his money and asked saving account number of informant and IFSC code, which was revealed to him by the informant and the informant also revealed his date of birth.
It is further alleged that the informant also is said to have given some code and ATM Pin, thereafter, the alleged sum of Rs 598/- credited in the account of the informant. Thereafter, OTP received on his mobile was also revealed.
It is also alleged that for about 1:50-2:00 hours, messages were coming continuously and the same were revealed by the informant and the money was being deducted from the account of the informant and he was unaware about all this.
It is further alleged that when son of the informant saw the messages that money is being deducted from account, then the same was complained to the bank manager namely, Avinash Shukla, whereupon he said that the complaint would be lodged only from your mobile, because server of the Bank is down. Thereafter, the Bank Manager called someone from mobile phone of informant and told that ATM of informant has been locked and everything has been locked and also told the informant to make all withdrawals through cheque.
It is further alleged that after this, informant is said to have received a call from an unknown number stating that the caller is from S.B.I Delhi Main Branch and he said the informant to go on Play Store of Mobile and download an application, thereafter, the informant disconnected the phone in anger, after which the money was continuously being deducted from his account till evening between 5-7 pm, which was complained to Bank Manager, namely, Avinash Shukla, thereafter, he told that the informant has not stopped YONO application and Net banking, so the money is being deducted.
Hearing this, informant said the Bank Manager that he had assured him that he had locked everything, and thereafter, the informant asked for the statement of account of both the days, which has been denied by the Bank Manager as by that time Rs16,78,380/- is said to have been deducted from account of the informant. Thereafter, the report of the incident was lodged at Cyber Crime.
The Court observed that,
It is no doubt true that Cybercrime is a growing threat that can have serious consequences for individuals and others in our country, therefore, Investigating Agencies are required to be well specialized in investigating such crimes to gather evidence and identify the culprits.
The goal of Cyber crime investigation is to identify the source of the crime, gather evidence and present that evidence in a way that can be used in Court to prosecute the culprits so as to ensure that justice is served for victims of Cybercrime In the matter, as it appears from the various compliance affidavits filed by the State as well as Investigating Agency not only show that they made their sincere efforts in getting the culprits to fore but also find sufficient materials against the applicant connecting him with the alleged crime, who is said to be the kingpin in the alleged offence on the basis of the materials collected during course of investigation, as such, prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
Moreover, the Supreme Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230 has held that the Court cannot exercise it powers in a capricious manner and before granting bail on the ground of parity, the Court must focus upon the role of the accused and his position in relation to the incident and victims is also of utmost importance.
“In the case, the argument of the applicant that he may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity, is found to be devoid of merit for the simple reason that the applicant is the kingpin of the alleged offence, and his role is distinguished in relation to other co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity with the co-accused.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submission advanced by counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant”, the Court further observed while rejecting the bail application.