Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail application No. 1329/23
FIR No. 0017/2023
PS Cyber, South West
U/s 420 IPC
State v. Priyabrata Mishra
24.07.2023
Present: Sh. Vikas Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State alongwith
Inspector Ranveer Singh.
Sh. S. B. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant.
This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre arrest
bail.
It is submitted on behalf of accused/applicant that he has
been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused/applicant has
received notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C and is ready to join the investigation as
and when called upon. It is stated that entire contents in the FIR are
based on cyber transaction without elaborating the names etc. Only
account number maintained in ICICI bank has been referred to
whereas applicant had no knowledge about transaction in that account.
It is stated that applicant has no criminal antecedents.
As per the reply filed by IO Inspector Ranveer Singh of
PS Cyber, South West that one Dhruv Sabarwal lodged a complaint on
21.01.2023 alleging that he received message from IndusInd Bank
regarding addition of new beneficiary and fraudulent debit of
Rs.19,99,999/- from his Indusind Bank saving account no.
-- 1 of 4 --
158800708888 and joined Indusind Bank account no. 159910064805.
Such amount was debited in four different installments. Complainant
alleged that he never shared the OTP and customer care Executive of
Indusind Bank did not block the account immediately despite
requesting repeatedly.
On such complaint, present case was registered initially
u/s 420 IPC. It is stated in the reply that during the investigation
notices were sent to victim’s Bank Indusind Bank, Karol Bagh for
obtaining the details of beneficiary accounts. Upon perusal of the
same it revealed that Rs.10 lakhs stood transferred to one Indusind
Bank account no. 100145820980 of Shri Ganganagar Branch,
Rajasthan in the name of Vijay Kumar. Later such amount stood
transferred to four different accounts as per details given in the reply
filed by IO.
It further came in the investigation that another
transaction of Rs.10 lakhs was debited from account of complainant
and transferred to the account no. 159167657189 of Indusind Bank,
Mumbai which is in the name of Uday Lal Lohar from whose account
money i.e. Rs.7,10,000/- was further transferred to two other accounts
including account no. 242401501526 of ICICI Bank, Cuttack, Odisha.
It is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for State that in the
pecuniary facts and circumstances the modus operandi in which the
crime has been committed as money has been unlawfully debited from
account of complainant and thereafter in a well thought plan
-- 2 of 4 --
transferred to different accounts including the account of
accused/applicant. He submits that custodial interrogation of accused
is required to collect all the connecting and relevant evidence as some
of the accused are still not arrested and money has not been recovered
as yet.
ld. Counsel for the accused on the other hand submits that
he has already furnished the affidavit regarding lost of his ATM and
there has been no malafide intention on the part of the accused. He
further submits that accused is ready to join the investigation.
Having considered the facts and circumstances, taking
note of the unique modus operandi in which unlawfully money was
transferred / debited from the account of complainant even without
sharing of any OTP or despite the fact that complainant has been
requesting the bank authorities of Indusind Bank to block the account,
money stood transferred, thereupon such money was again further
transferred to different accounts. In such circumstances, I find that
investigating agency is required to collect all the relevant connecting
evidence. It is not a simple case where by accused joining the
investigation the very purpose of investigation can be served. It is a
case where I find that Ld. APP for State has rightly stated that
custodial interrogation of accused is required. Therefore, notice u/s
41A Cr.P.C. has already been served twice. In such circumstances,
when IO has a power to arrest the accused in a case which may
involve commission of offences punishable even more than 7 years
-- 3 of 4 --
and IO in terms of section 41A (3) Cr.P.C. can still affect the arrest. No
case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Application
accordingly stands dismissed.
(Shailender Malik)
ASJ-03/PHC/ND/24.07.2023
-- 4 of 4 --