Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 384 (UTT)

Mohammad Iqbal v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-05-24

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 08 of 2023, under Section 420 & 120B IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station Cyber Crime Dehradun, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is a case of online fraud. The informant was contacted from some whatsApp number, he was engaged in some conversation, lured to invest some money and he was subsequently cheated to the tune of Rs.13, 11,900/-. It is the case that some amount was also deposited in the account of the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is not involved in the case. He has not committed any offence. He is much clean. One of his friends, namely, Gaurav Kumar approached him in the year 2023 and required to operate the saving account of the applicant for the purpose of online gaming. The applicant so as to get his dues from Gaurav Kumar gave his account details to Gaurav Kumar. It is argued that when the applicant came to know that the money is being deposited in his account, on 26.04.2023, he gave a report to the police to enquire into the matter. The applicant has no concern about the amount that was deposited in his account. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the applicant was much aware of the fraud. He would submit that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case during investigation. Particularly, the statement of Vinod Kumar, Branch Manager of the Bank has been referred to. According to the Branch Manager, it is he, who noted large number of transactions in the account of the applicant and called him. Than the applicant gave an excuse that it is the money pertaining to his business and he is transmitting the money in the account of his sister. According to this witness Vinod Kumar, next day also, noticing huge transactions, the applicant was called. Thereafter, some operations were seized in the account. Learned counsel has also referred to the KVC details of the applicant, in which, as per the Investigating Officer, the applicant’s photograph was in police uniform. 6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Thereafter, some operations were seized in the account. Learned counsel has also referred to the KVC details of the applicant, in which, as per the Investigating Officer, the applicant’s photograph was in police uniform. 6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 7. It is a case of online fraud, cheating innocent people in the name of high returns. What is being argued is that when noticed the applicant informed the police, whereas, the Branch Manager speaks otherwise. According to the Branch Manager, Vinod Kumar, he noticed large numbers of transactions in the account of the applicant and he questioned the applicant, the applicant then told that the money pertains to his business and the applicant is forwarding this money to his sister. But next day again, when these transactions were noticed, the applicant was again questioned and some of the operations of his accounts were seized and thereafter, the applicant was told to inform the police. 8. The nature of offence is such that this Court has no doubt that if released, there are immense chances of repeat offences. 9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 10. The bail application is rejected.