A Bengaluru City Civil and Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to three residents of Ahmedabad—Sudheer alias Ulbhagat Sudhir, Sameer alias Ramesh, and Jafar Khan Pathan—who were allegedly involved in a high-profile cybercrime and cheating racket operating out of a prominent tech park in the city. The order was delivered on March 30, 2024, by Sri T. Govindaiah, the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, sitting at CCH 57.
The petitioners were seeking protection from arrest in connection with Crime Number 201/2024, registered by the Whitefield CEN (Cyber, Economic, and Narcotics) Crime Police Station. The case involves complex charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Information Technology Act, 2000, revolving around an illegal telephone exchange and a fraudulent loan processing scheme.
Details of the Alleged Cybercrime Operation
The case against the three petitioners began following a police raid on Rockland Business Solutions, located within Gamma Block at Sigma Tech Park in Bengaluru. According to the prosecution’s case, the operation was allegedly orchestrated by individuals named Vijay and Veeren, who employed 10 to 15 staff members to run a fake phone call center.
The modus operandi involved making fraudulent calls to unsuspecting members of the public, inducing them with offers of easy online loans. The accused allegedly collected various fees, including “processing fees,” “service charges,” and payments for “gift cards.” Despite these payments, no loans were ever disbursed. The investigation revealed that the funds were funneled through various bank accounts via online transfers, effectively cheating victims of significant sums of money.
The Whitefield CEN Police registered the case under several stringent legal provisions. These include Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Punishment for cheating by personation), and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property). Furthermore, the petitioners faced charges under the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66(C) (Punishment for identity theft) and Section 66(D) (Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource).
Arguments for Anticipatory Bail
The legal counsel for Sudheer, Sameer, and Jafar Khan argued that the petitioners were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the fabricated case. They contended that there were no specific allegations directly linking the petitioners to the illegal transfer of funds. The defense also pointed out that other co-accused individuals in the same case had already been granted bail.
Furthermore, the petitioners asserted that they are respectable members of society and the sole breadwinners for their families. They argued that since the offenses are not punishable by death or life imprisonment and because they are willing to cooperate with the investigating authorities, their personal liberty should be protected.
The prosecution vehemently opposed the bail petition, arguing that the evidence collected thus far pointed to a prima facie involvement of the petitioners in a systematic cheating racket. The Public Prosecutor expressed concerns that the accused, being residents of Gujarat, might abscond, tamper with evidence, or threaten witnesses if granted anticipatory bail.
Judicial Reasoning and Presumption of Innocence
In his analysis, Judge T. Govindaiah noted that the exact nature of the role played by these specific petitioners in the illegal transfer of money remained a matter of investigation. The court observed that without specific, concrete allegations at this preliminary stage, the petitioners were entitled to the presumption of innocence.
The court relied on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat (2016), which emphasizes that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (relating to anticipatory bail), should be given its full play. The court noted that a person seeking such relief is still a free man and should not be deprived of liberty unless a special case for detention is made out.
The judge concluded that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the accused fleeing or tampering with evidence could be effectively managed by imposing stringent conditions rather than by denying bail.
Strict Conditions for Release
While allowing the petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court imposed a series of strict conditions to ensure the petitioners remain available for the legal process:
- The petitioners must execute a personal bond of 1,00,000 rupees each, along with two sureties for a similar amount.
- They must appear before the concerned jurisdictional court and move for regular bail within 15 days.
- They must appear before the Whitefield CEN Police whenever summoned and fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
- The petitioners are prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of Bengaluru without prior permission.
- They are strictly warned against committing similar offenses in the future and must provide proof of their residential addresses.
The court made it clear that any violation of these terms would result in the automatic cancellation of their bail. This ruling highlights the balance the judiciary must maintain between enabling thorough police investigations into cybercrime and protecting the fundamental right to liberty.