Sessions Court denies bail to man from Gujarat accused of online

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Shriram Narayan Hegde has denied bail to a man from Gujarat accused of online fraud by accepting the prosecution argument that “In this In this type of Online fraud without custodial interrogation the investigation cannot be completed. This petitioner is from the State of Gujarat. If anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner will tamper with prosecution witnesses and will hamper the investigation. He may abscond.”

One Ashvinkumar Mafaji Chaudhary, a resident of Banashantha in Gujarat approached the Bengaluru court seeking anticipatory bail. One Gowrishankar had filed a complaint in the South Cen Crime Police Station that he had noticed an investment message on Instagram and as per the instruction in it, invested Rs.40,000.

He was promised Rs.50,000 in return in a short time. Gowrishankar subsequently invested a total of Rs.1,53,700. He complained that unknown persons have cheated him and not returned the money invested.

The police registered a case under Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology (IT) Act. The police traced the Instagram ID to Ashvinkumar Chaudhary.

In his bail petition, the accused contended that he was innocent and a false complaint has been filed against him. The Public Prosecutor however pointed out to the court that the money has been transferred from the account of the complainant to the accused and the investigation so far revealed that the accused along with others had cheated the complainant.

It was argued that the custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary.

The Court in its judgement said, “I have gone through the entire materials available on record. According to the complainant, believing the version of the unknown person he invested in total Rs.1,53,700/- and finally, that unknown person cheated him. This petitioner from the State of Gujarat approached this court and filed this petitioner by stating that he has not committed any offence. According to the investigating officer on the basis of the online transaction this petitioner is traced and he is very much required for custodial interrogation. In this type of Online fraud the custodial interrogation is very much necessary to find out the truth.”

Rejecting the bail, the Court said, “The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that only in the investigation it is to be found whether this complainant alone is cheated or some other persons are also cheated by this accused. The apprehension of the prosecution is that if the bail is granted this petitioner may tamper with prosecution witnesses or hamper the investigation or abscond. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the apprehension of the prosecution cannot be ruled out. In this type of Online fraud custodial interrogation is very much necessary.” (Crl Misc 6449/2023)