JUDGMENT : These petitions have been filed seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 236 of 2019, dated 4.7.2019, under Sections 420, 120-B, 201 IPC and Section 14 of Indian Foreigner Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, Una, District Una, H.P. 2. Status report stands filed, wherein manner, in which offence alleged to have been committed by petitioners alongwith co-accused Martin James John, causing the victim to transfer/transmit about Rs.27,00,000/- in the account supplied by the accused person during 11th January, 2019 to 7th March, 2019, has been narrated in detail. 3. In brief, as per status report, complainant, serving as Head Mistress, had come in contact of some unknown person through Face Book, who was claiming himself to be resident of United Kingdom. After some time she received a call purporting to be a call from Airport Custom Department informing that one parcel sent to her from United Kingdom was lying with them and for release of which she had to deposit Rs.93,000/- in the account number communicated by them. At first instance complainant had refused by saying that she had not been expecting any such parcel. But thereafter, she received a message from resident of United Kingdom, came in her contact through Face Book, disclosing that he had sent the parcel to her and had advised to receive it, whereupon complainant had deposited Rs.93,000/- in the account number communicated to her. Thereafter complainant received another call claiming it to be a call from Airport Custom Department to inform her that parcel contained number of dollars and huge Gold and, therefore, she had to pay Rs.1,75,000/- in addition to the amount deposited by her earlier. After couple of days, complainant again received a message from resident of United Kingdom that he had been coming to India, but he was detained by Custom Department at Mumbai Airport as he was possessing huge quantity of dollars and gold, and Custom Department was asking for money and he was not in a position to exchange the dollars and Gold into Rupees, therefore, he asked complainant to send money to the account communicated by him. Complainant transferred the amount to the account communicated by the accused person under compulsion as she thought that in case she would not send money, then the person would remain in detention and her money, already transferred by her, would not be recovered. Complainant transferred the amount to the account communicated by the accused person under compulsion as she thought that in case she would not send money, then the person would remain in detention and her money, already transferred by her, would not be recovered. On last occasion of demand of money complainant asked for Rs.2,00,000/- from her husband, who was not aware about this entire episode and thereupon her husband had inquired about the matter and when complainant asked resident of United Kingdom to refund her money, then the said person switched off the phone. Whereupon complainant, on 4.7.2019, approached the Police and FIR was lodged. 4. Complainant had reported that she had been receiving messages and calls from phone Nos.7303637393, 7065518321, 9711196438, 447511750525, 4474677112886, 447513152214 and 447448352202. 5. After registration of FIR, investigation was carried out and co-accused Martin James John was detained on the basis of phone call and location of shop and mobile phone through which he had been recharging his phone and he, on finding involved in commission of offence, was arrested on 20.2.2021, however he was enlarged on bail by the Court on 29.4.2021 by extending benefit of default bail as the Investigating Agency was not able to file challan within prescribed period. 6. During investigation account numbers to which amount was transferred were verified. These account numbers were of different branches of State Bank of India located in Nagaland. Complainant had transferred Rs.27,78,794/- to these accounts. On inquiry, all these accounts were found fake. 7. During investigation it was found that from SIM No. 70655-18321 complainant had 42 calls, for commission of offence and this SIM Card/number was used in phone sets having IEMI No. 865146020660770 and 355821093999270. These Mobile sets were used for large number of SIM/Mobile phone number and this mobile set was also being used by Martin James John (a Nigerian Citizen) and Investigating Agency reached to Martin James John and he was arrested. 8. During investigation SIM No. 98620-97938 having tower location Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi belonging to petitioner Mhabeni Envy and another SIM Card No. 84488-18565 of Mhabeni Envy were also found used in mobile Set 355821093999270. With the aforesaid clue petitioner Mhabeni Envy was traced and she was found residing in Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi along with her husband Nicolas Chinedu co-accused. 9. With the aforesaid clue petitioner Mhabeni Envy was traced and she was found residing in Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi along with her husband Nicolas Chinedu co-accused. 9. During search of the room of the petitioners Mobile Phone used for commission of offence was found without SIM Card and apart from aforesaid Phone, currency of Rs.3,50,000/-, eight other Mobile Phones alongwith number of SIM Cards and a laptop were recovered. The Mobile Phones used for commission of offence was found in possession of petitioner. Petitioner Mhabeni Envy is originally resident of Nagaland and fake account numbers used for commission of offence were also found to be opened in various branches of SBI on fake identity and in these circumstances petitioners have been arrested and produced before the court on 5.8.2021. Thereafter, they after remaining in Police custody, are now in judicial custody. It was claimed by petitioner Mhabeni Envy that Rs.3,50,000/- had been withdrawn by her from her own account No. 31714378551 SBI Ranga Pahar Deemapur Nagaland. During investigation this account number was found in the name of Mhabeni Envy, however, after obtaining the account statement of that account this claim of Mhabeny was found false, which substantiated the claim that petitioners were involved in illegal transaction of amount in deceitful manner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that offence at the most, in case considered to be true, committed by the petitioners is under Section 420 IPC, for which petitioners should not be detained in jail without conviction, particularly when co-accused Martins James John has been enlarged on bail on 29.4.2021. 11. In case of Mhabeni Envy, it has also been contended that she is also entitled to be enlarged on bail being a lady as envisaged under Section 437 of Cr.P.C., especially for the reason that she is Indian National and there is no possibility of her absconding. 12. It has been further contended that co-accused Nicolas Chinedu is husband of Mhabeni Enny and, therefore, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail, particularly when main accused has been enlarged on bail. 13. 12. It has been further contended that co-accused Nicolas Chinedu is husband of Mhabeni Enny and, therefore, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail, particularly when main accused has been enlarged on bail. 13. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that first transaction of amount had taken place in January, 2019 and date of last transaction is March, 2019 whereas FIR has been lodged in July, 2019 without any explanation for delay and petitioners have been arrested after more than two years and on this count also prayer for granting bail has been made. 14. It has been contended that nothing has been recovered from petitioners except mobile phone, laptop and cash unconnected to offence in present case and beneficiary of alleged offence is on bail and challan has been presented in the Court, therefore, petitioners cannot be refused bail for pre conviction punishment particularly keeping in view pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Dataram Vs. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 especially when for conduct of Police/Investigator Martin James John has been enlarged on bail. It has also been canvassed that when main accused is on bail, accomplice cannot be kept behind the bars. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that co-accused Martin James John has not been released on bail on merits, but he has been granted default bail for not filing challan within the period as investigation could not be completed, because Investigator had to visit Nagaland and Delhi etc. and during that period statutory time for filing challan had expired. According to him, involvement of petitioners in the crime is evident from the material on record, particularly from the recovery of nine Mobile Phones and number of SIMs, and also fake accounts opened in the State of Nagaland. Lastly, it has been submitted that cyber crimes are increasing day by day and innocent people are being duped by culprits like present case where complainant has lost not only her lifelong earning but has also borrowed huge money for transferring to accused persons. Lastly, it has been submitted that cyber crimes are increasing day by day and innocent people are being duped by culprits like present case where complainant has lost not only her lifelong earning but has also borrowed huge money for transferring to accused persons. It has also been contended by learned Additional Advocate General that there is no delay in lodging FIR as it is natural conduct and behavior of a lady, who had transferred the amount without taking into confidence her husband, to transfer further amount, instead of reporting the matter, with a hope that after making further payment she would be getting/recovering entire amount. 16. Learned Additional Advocate General has contended that Mhabeni Envy is main accused as entire amount has been routed through fake bank accounts opened in Nagaland wherefrom she hails and thus she is not entitled for benefit being a lady for main and active role in commission of offence. Further that default bail to one co-accused does not entitle other co-accused arrested later on to get bail on the said ground. 17. It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate general that menace of duping innocent persons through cyber crime leading to irreparable and unbearable loss to victim is increasing day by day and, therefore, petitioners do not deserve any leniency. 18. As a matter of fact, offence involved in present case is not only against an individual, but is also against the public at large. This fact cannot be ignored that there is tremendous rise in commission of offences related to the cyber crime causing extraction/extortion of money from innocent people by alluring them by the offenders. Thus offence like nature of offence committed in present case is an offence against society. Because of such incidents, a considerable population is discouraged to adopt modern technology for transactions of money. 19. After going through the contents of the status report, considering cumulative effect of facts and circumstances and weighing personal interest of the petitioner(s) with societal interest, and also impact of enlarging the petitioners, at this stage, on the society, I do not find it fit to enlarge the petitioner(s) on bail. Hence, bail application(s) are dismissed.