The Bombay High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to one Kumar Kunal, accused of remotely accessing the laptop of GMAT exam candidates through Any Desk app, solving the papers, and manipulating results.Justice Amit Borkar observed that the custodial interrogation of Kunal is necessary in light of WhatsApp chats between him and one Shantanu, a victim of the scam.“prima facie, it...
The Bombay High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to one Kumar Kunal, accused of remotely accessing the laptop of GMAT exam candidates through Any Desk app, solving the papers, and manipulating results.
Justice Amit Borkar observed that the custodial interrogation of Kunal is necessary in light of WhatsApp chats between him and one Shantanu, a victim of the scam.
“prima facie, it appears that the relevant extract of diary maintained by the principal accused indicate payment of Rs.1,47,000/- and Rs.2,56,000/- to the applicant by cash. The prosecution case gets strength from the WhatsApp conversion between the applicant and witness Shantanu who is one of the victim…In the context of observations made in the said order the WhatsApp chat between witness Shantanu and the applicant does have material bearing on the investigation. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary”, the court held.
The case pertains to a cyber fraud case registered with the Cyber Cell police station, Pune City, for offences under Sections 420 of the IPC, and under Sections 43(a), (f), (g), (i), 66C, and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2018.
The prosecution has alleged that the accused was involved in a scam operated through a coaching centre named Dream Education. The scam allegedly used the Any Desk app, enabling unauthorized remote access to computers of students appearing for GMAT exams, allowing the manipulation of their scores. It is claimed that the accused obtained money from students who secured desired marks through this fraudulent scheme.
The alleged scam involved an Instagram page named GMAT_GRE_SHORTCUT. The informant Swapnil Vaidya claimed that his friend suspected the page to be a scam. Thus, the informant lent his laptop for a sting operation. He made contact with one Pranav, who asked him to install Any Desk app on his laptop. Kunal Kumar allegedly remotely accessed the informant’s laptop during a GMAT exam, resulting in a provisional score of 770/800. Pranav allegedly demanded Rs. 4 lakh, prompting the informant to expose the scam and report it to the police. Pranav claimed to be a mere employee and identified one Abhay Mishra as the head of the centre. Kunal Kumar’s anticipatory bail application was rejected by the sessions court. Thus, he approached the High Court seeking the same relief.
Advocate Abhijeet Shukla for the applicant argued that he has been falsely implicated, and there was no substantial material linking his client to the alleged offence. He contended that his client had neither received any amount nor was connected to the transactions mentioned in the FIR. Additionally, he highlighted that the applicant had changed his mobile phone, which he used during the transactions in question.
Assistant Public Prosecutor Amit A Palkar highlighted evidence from WhatsApp conversations and the diary maintained by the principal accused. The diary allegedly indicates payment of Rs.1,47,000/- to the applicant and contains one more entry of Rs.2,56,000/-. He said that WhatsApp chat between Shantanu (victim) and Kunal is sufficient to implicate him.
According to the investigating agency, when Kunal’s cell phone which was used for the alleged transaction was sought, he claimed to have changed the cell phone.
Kumar Kunal expresses his willing ness to cooperate with the investigation.
The court noted that the diary maintained by the principal accused contained entries detailing payments made to the applicant. Moreover, WhatsApp conversations between the applicant and Shantanu, a victim in the case, appeared to provide incriminating information.
The court cited previous court observations on the concept of cooperation with investigation, emphasizing that cooperation involves providing accurate and complete information, full disclosure, and transparency without withholding or manipulating information to aid the investigation.
The court ruled that the applicant failed to present sufficient grounds to warrant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC and held that custodial interrogation was essential to unravel the complexities of the case. Thus, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Case no. – Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2183 of 2023
Case Title – Kumar Kunal v. State of Maharashtra