The Court of Session for Greater Bombay has rejected the regular bail application of Syed Ali Mohiuddin Makki, an accused in a major cyber fraud case, emphasizing the applicant’s complicity in allowing his bank account to be used for the criminal enterprise. The order, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne on April 29, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 1051 of 2024, underscored that the applicant was not a mere victim but an active participant who knowingly facilitated the fraud for a commission. Makki was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 3/2024 registered with the Cyber Police Station, Central Region, Mumbai, facing severe charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 419 (Cheating by personation), 420 (Cheating), 465, 467, 468, 471 (Forgery and use of forged documents), and 120-B (Criminal conspiracy), alongside Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Cheating by personation by using computer resource).

The Modus Operandi of the Online Part-Time Job Scam

The prosecution’s case was initiated by a report lodged by Mr. Kashyap Kalpesh Thakkar, who stated that he was duped of a substantial amount of Rs. 10,30,000/-. The victim was targeted on November 16, 2023, via WhatsApp with an offer for a seemingly legitimate “part-time job.” For various “online tasks,” the complainant was offered a commission but was induced to transfer a certain amount of money into various bank accounts to receive these tasks. Believing the scheme to be genuine, the complainant repeatedly deposited funds, only to realize he had been systematically cheated. The subsequent investigation traced the fraudulent money trail, revealing that the applicant’s bank account was a critical component used in receiving the illicit funds. This finding shifted the focus of the investigation towards those who provided their accounts to the fraudsters.

The Applicant’s Knowledge and Complicity

The applicant, a resident of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., asserting his innocence and claiming he was falsely implicated. His counsel argued that he was the sole earning member of his family, had no criminal antecedents, had completed custodial interrogation since his arrest on March 9, 2024, and that further detention was unnecessary. However, the prosecution, represented by APP Iqbal Solkar, strongly opposed the bail plea. The State’s reply, Exhibit 2, highlighted the crucial investigative revelation: the applicant admitted to allowing one Mr. M.D. Raazi from Hyderabad to use his bank account for the purpose of the fraud, and further confessed to accepting a commission for the use of the said account.

The Sessions Court sided firmly with the prosecution’s view regarding the gravity of the applicant’s involvement. The Court’s order explicitly stated that it was a “matter of fact that the bank account of the applicant has been used in fraud with his consent and his knowledge.” Judge Sasne observed that the applicant was fully aware of the huge amount of money being transferred into his account but “did not raised objection to such transaction.” This complicity demonstrated that the applicant “assisted the principle accused in commission of said fraud” and was not merely an unwitting victim or an innocent party, but a knowing facilitator.

Flight Risk and Hindrance to Ongoing Investigation

In its concluding assessment, the Court cited two main reasons for rejecting the bail application. Firstly, the investigation revealed that the principal accused, Mr. M.D. Razi, is yet to be arrested, meaning the investigation is still actively “in progress.” Releasing the applicant at this stage, the Court concluded, “will hamper the investigation,” as he possesses direct knowledge that could compromise the pursuit of the main perpetrator. Secondly, the Court noted the significant risk posed by the applicant’s residence: he is a permanent resident of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, a different state from the jurisdiction of the Cyber Police Station in Mumbai. This interstate residency was deemed a factor indicating a high likelihood that the accused “will flee away from the justice” if released on bail, particularly in a complex cybercrime case where digital footprints can be more easily obscured. Consequently, the Court found the applicant was “not entitled for the bail,” resulting in the rejection of Criminal Bail Application No. 1051 of 2024.