The LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to Sooraj Raju, who was arrayed as the third accused in a high-stakes cheating and information technology case. The legal battle, stemming from a dispute over unpaid SMS service charges amounting to over 2.74 crore Rupees, reached a significant milestone on January 31, 2023, when the court ruled in favor of the petitioner’s liberty.
Presided over by Sri Kashim Churikhan, the court examined the nuances of the allegations filed under Crime Number 846/2022 by the Whitefield CEN (Cyber, Economic offences, and Narcotics) Crime Police Station. The petitioner sought protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, facing charges under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Details of the Dispute Between One97 Communications and Dnivog Solutions
The controversy began when an informant representing One97 Communications Limited, a prominent technology company, lodged a criminal report. The complaint alleged that a proprietorship concern named Dnivog Solutions had approached them for SMS gateway services. The two companies reportedly entered into an agreement whereby One97 Communications provided SMS connectivity to Dnivog Solutions for a duration of three months.
According to the prosecution, the service charges incurred during this period totaled 2,74,94,931 Rupees. To settle these dues, the accused parties issued three cheques: two valued at 50,00,000 Rupees each and one for 35,00,000 Rupees. However, these cheques were returned by the bank due to insufficient funds. The informant alleged that Dnivog Solutions and its associates intentionally utilized the services with no real intent to pay, thereby committing an act of cheating and financial fraud.
Arguments Presented by the Petitioner Sooraj Raju
Sooraj Raju, represented by Advocate Sri T.S., maintained a firm stance of innocence throughout the proceedings. The defense argued that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in a commercial dispute where he had no primary role. A key pillar of the defense was that Sooraj Raju was not the Chief Executive Officer or an owner of Dnivog Solutions.
The defense clarified that Accused No. 2, in his capacity as the proprietor of the firm, was the individual responsible for issuing the cheques and managing the business accounts. Sooraj Raju’s involvement was characterized as that of a mere mediator. The petitioner claimed he was only summoned by Accused No. 2 to help facilitate discussions and mediate between the firm and One97 Communications.
Counsel further argued that the offences alleged—Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act (Computer-related offences)—are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry penalties as severe as life imprisonment or death. Highlighting his deep roots in the society and his status as a permanent resident of Gunjur Village, the petitioner assured the court that he posed no flight risk.
Prosecution’s Resistance and Court’s Findings
The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, filing written objections that underscored the severity of the financial loss to the informant company. The prosecution argued that the investigation was in a critical phase and that Sooraj Raju had been absconding since the registration of the case. They expressed concerns that granting anticipatory bail would allow the petitioner to threaten witnesses, destroy digital evidence, or flee from justice.
However, the court found the petitioner’s arguments more compelling regarding the necessity of arrest. Judge Kashim Churikhan noted that there were no specific allegations or documented proof at this stage connecting Sooraj Raju directly to the management of Dnivog Solutions. The court observed that the core of the case—the non-payment of service charges and the bouncing of cheques—appeared to be a transaction between the firm’s proprietor and the informant company.
The court reiterated that the primary purpose of bail is to ensure the accused’s presence during the trial, not to serve as a pre-trial punishment. Given that the petitioner was willing to cooperate with the investigation and had no prior criminal record, the court deemed his apprehension of arrest well-founded.
Conditions of the Anticipatory Bail Order
Granting the petition, the court ordered that in the event of arrest, Sooraj Raju must be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner must execute a personal bond for 1,00,000 Rupees with one surety for a similar amount to the satisfaction of the Whitefield CEN Crime Police.
- The petitioner is required to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days of the order to assist and cooperate with the ongoing probe as and when required.
- The petitioner must appear before the trial court on all scheduled dates of hearing without fail.
- The petitioner is strictly prohibited from tampering with any prosecution witnesses or digital evidence related to the case.
- The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities or similar offences while the matter is pending.
This ruling ensures that the petitioner can participate in the legal process without the immediate threat of incarceration, while the Whitefield CEN Police continue their investigation into the alleged default and cheating.