Online Cheating & Fraud Rampant But Court Can't Remiss In Performing Duty To Uphold Liberty: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Four
The Delhi High Court has observed that though online cheating and fraud has become rampant in the Country, it cannot remiss in performing it's duty to uphold liberty subject to other relevant considerations. Justice Subramonium Prasad granted bail to four persons namely Moveen, Waris, Manvendra Singh and Sajid in a case initially registered under Section 420 of IPC. The facts of the case are...
The Delhi High Court has observed that though online cheating and fraud has become rampant in the Country, it cannot remiss in performing it's duty to uphold liberty subject to other relevant considerations.
Justice Subramonium Prasad granted bail to four persons namely Moveen, Waris, Manvendra Singh and Sajid in a case initially registered under Section 420 of IPC.
The facts of the case are that the complainant had stated that she uploaded some articles for sale on OLX website and got a call from mobile by one Raghuvendra Singh, who offered Rs. 21,000 to which she agreed and the transaction was to be done through online payment mode.
She alleged that after transferring a total of Rs.34,000, she was not able to contact Raghavendra Singh after calling multiple times and suspected that she had been defrauded by him. Subsequently, FIR was registered.
After initial enquiry, it was found that a student of 12th Standard stated that he made friends with Manvendra Singh, who allegedly lured him with a sum Rs.1,000 if he owned a bank account and operated a phone number under a fictitious name and address.
The student was then arrested from U.P. and was remanded to Police custody for two days. The involvement of other accused persons was revealed to the Police. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed and relevant offences under the Information Technology Act were added.
The bail pleas of the petitioners were rejected by the trial court after observing that the petitioners were accused of embezzlement and used clever devices to cheat many innocent persons on the internet, the transactions of which were being investigated by the Cyber Cell or IT Department and that this was the first time that they were caught.
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that charge sheet has been filed, they had been in custody for 10 months and that the nature of evidence against them was documentary in nature which would not require their custodial presence.
It was argued that although the petitioners were adults but were in the prime of their youths and had a good future ahead, being incarcerated as undertrials would deprive them of being gainfully employed.
On the other hand, the prosecution argued that the SIM cards were obtained from the petitioners by giving fake IDs and further the charge of forgery was also made out against them.
It was argued that the charge of forgery prescribe a punishment of 10 years extending upto life imprisonment, and, therefore, bail ought not to granted to them.
Noting that the Chargesheet and supplementary Chargesheet were filed in the matter, the Court said:
"The petitioners have been in judicial custody for 10 months. This Court is aware that this kind of online cheating and fraud has become rampant in most parts of the country. However, this Court cannot remiss in performing its duty, that is to uphold liberty subject to other relevant considerations."
It added,
"Since the investigation has been completed and the chargesheet has been filed before the learned Trial Court and taking into account the evidence are primarily documentary in nature, this Court, therefore, is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by further keeping the petitioners in custody."
Accordingly, the Court granted bail to the four.
Case Title: Moveen v. State