Online fraud involving cyber-crime is on enormous rise in the country and court not inclined to grant bail: High Court of Chhattisgarh

MCRC No.28321 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Proceedings through video conferencing Order Reserved on 08.07.2021 Order Delivered on 14 .07.2021 MCRC No. 28321 1. Vijay Bijoy Majumdar S o Balram Majumdar Aged About 26 Years R o Ward No. 12 Railway Gaurds Colony Aronjangla Dhubri Down Amko Road Dhubri District DhubriHariharpur District Dhanbadfor the offence punishable under Sections 420 467 468 34 of the Indian Penal Code 3. As per the prosecution case the applicants claiming themselves to be belonging to SSR Industries and Telecom Industry induced the complainant Shailesh Singh Kachhwaha by calling him and sending messages in his mobile number assuring him of establishing mobile tower of Airtel Company on his land. They obtained different amounts in installments from November 2020 onwards from the complainant the total amount being Rs. 39 It is argued on behalf of the applicants that the amount received from the complainant was deposited with the Airtel Company and the applicants are not the beneficiary and they being in jail since 20 02 2021 they are entitled to be released on bail 5. Per contra learned State counsel would oppose the prayer for grant of bail. He would submit that the applicants posed themselves as agents of Airtel Company however the amount has not been made over to the Airtel Company therefore considering the nature of fraud committed by the applicants they are not entitled to be released on bail 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it appears the applicants have obtained payment of Rs. 39 lacs from the MCRC No.28321 complainant by falsely assuring him of erecting a mobile tower on his land. The applicants are not the agents of the Airtel Company No such document has been produced by the applicants showing their contract arrangement with Airtel Company authorizing them to obtain payment for establishing a mobile tower. Online fraud involving cyber crime is on enormous rise in the country 7. Considering the facts situation of the case and considering the gravity of offence I am not inclined to release the applicants on 8. Accordingly the present bail application is rejected (Prashant Kumar Mishra Acting Chief Justice

Summary: Crimes like forgery and fraud have always been very serious non-bailable offences in India. However in recent times these offences have become much more worrying as they are been conducted through electronic means, it is therefore necessary that strict and prompt action be taken against such offences to keep India safe in these times. This issue was addressed in the case of Vijay Bijoy Majumdar v. State of Chhattisgarh [MCRC No. 2836 of 2021] by a single member bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh consisting of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra on 14th July 2021. The applicants Vijay Bijoy Majumdar, Devashish Mistri and Raja Khan allegedly belong to SSR Industries and induced the complainant Shailesh Kachhwaha by calling him and repeatedly sending him messages on his mobile number assuring him of establishing a mobile tower of Airtel Company on his land. Through multiple instalments they obtained different amounts from him and since November 2020, they made a total sum of Rs 39,00,000 from the complainant. The applicants were arrested in connection with crime no. 79/2021 registered at Police Station in Champa under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for forgery for purpose of cheating, dishonestly inducing delivery of property and forgery of valuable security. The state counsel contended that the applicants posed themselves as agents of the Airtel Company, however no payment has been made over to Airtel Compnay from the 39 lakhs obtained from the complainant. The applicants prayed for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C and stated that they were agents of Airtel Company and not the beneficiary of the money obtained from the complainant. However they failed to produce any kind of documents to the court showing them to have any kind of contract or arrangement with Airtel Company or to prove they had the authorisation to obtain payment for the establishment of a mobile tower. The state counsel responded that the facts and evidence clearly pointed to fraud and so they should not be entitled to be released on bail.