The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay has granted regular bail to Mohammad Ayyub Yakub Shaikh, an accused implicated in a large-scale cyber fraud case involving a part-time job scheme. H.H. Additional Sessions Judge V. M. Sundale (C.R. No. 27), in an order dated April 25, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 994 of 2024, ruled that the continuation of judicial custody was unnecessary, particularly since nothing was recovered from the applicant during his police custody and the prosecution failed to establish a prior criminal history. Mr. Shaikh was arrested in connection with Crime No. 206/2024 registered at Vakola Police Station for offenses under Sections 420 (Cheating) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.
The ₹8 Lakh “Part-Time Job” Fraud
The prosecution’s case centers on a prevalent type of modern online scam. The applicant, Mr. Shaikh, and his co-accused were alleged to have operated a “very big cyber network” designed to cheat the public. In this specific instance, they induced the informant with the false promise of a part-time job at a known company, “Cleartrip Private Limited.” Under the guise of job requirements or fees, they convinced the victim to transfer a significant sum, resulting in the victim being cheated out of ₹8,16,200/- (over ₹8.16 Lakhs). The investigation traced a portion of this fraudulent amount, identifying that ₹50,000/- was directly transferred to Mr. Shaikh’s bank account as “commission.” The applicant’s involvement, therefore, was not from the original complaint but was revealed through the financial investigation.
Prosecution’s Objections Versus Judicial Scrutiny
The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Ms. Ratnavali Patil, vehemently opposed the bail application. Their objections were multi-faceted: the seriousness of the offense (being part of a large cyber network), the ongoing nature of the investigation, and the risk that the applicant—a resident of Uttar Pradesh (though residing in Nalasopara, Palghar)—might flee from justice, tamper with evidence, or pressurize prosecution witnesses. They argued that his confirmed receipt of a commission demonstrated his active, knowledgeable role in the criminal conspiracy.
However, the Court meticulously examined the facts against the legal requirements for detention. The Sessions Judge noted several deficiencies in the prosecution’s case that weakened the argument for continued custody:
- The applicant’s name was not in the original FIR.
- Crucially, though he was arrested on March 28, 2024, and remanded to police custody, the Court found that “nothing could be recovered from the applicant” during that period.
- The prosecution failed to place on record any information about the applicant’s past criminal antecedents.
Judicial Rationale: Detention Cannot Be Indefinite
The Judge’s decision was rooted in the principle that custody cannot be used as a form of pre-trial punishment, especially when investigative needs have been largely satisfied. The Court highlighted that the charges against the applicant are punishable with imprisonment to the extent of seven years—a factor that generally favors the grant of bail, provided there are no other compelling circumstances. The Court concluded that since the key recovery phase had yielded no results from the applicant’s person and no evidence suggested a prior criminal record, there were “no extra ordinary circumstances to keep the applicant behind bar for indefinite period.”
The judicial determination was that the fears raised by the investigating officer—of flight risk and witness tampering—could be adequately addressed by imposing stringent bail conditions rather than denying liberty outright. Finding the applicant entitled to release in the facts and circumstances, the Court moved to formalize the conditions for his release.
Conditions for Release on Bail
The Criminal Bail Application No. 994 of 2024 was allowed. Mohammad Ayyub Yakub Shaikh was granted bail upon executing a P.R. Bond of ₹50,000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount. To ensure the integrity of the remaining process, the Court imposed several key conditions:
- Provisional Cash Bail: A measure to facilitate prompt release, provisional cash bail in the like amount was allowed for four weeks, during which the applicant must furnish the solvent surety.
- Reporting: The applicant is mandated to attend the Vakola Police Station once a week on every Wednesday between 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. till the filing of the charge-sheet and fully cooperate with the investigating agency.
- Non-Interference: He must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or pressurize any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
- Travel Restriction: The applicant is strictly ordered not to leave India without the prior permission of the Court.
This ruling affirms the judiciary’s commitment to protecting personal liberty while using robust reporting conditions to manage the risks associated with cybercrime accused pending trial.