Cyber Crime Crackdown: Custodial Interrogation Deemed Essential to Unravel Inter-State Financial Fraud Racket
In a significant development underscoring the judiciary’s stern approach towards sophisticated financial cybercrimes, the LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-64) at Bengaluru has rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Akhil Alby, a 26-year-old resident of Ernakulam, Kerala. The petitioner was seeking protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in connection with a case registered by the Whitefield CEN Police Station for offenses including cheating and impersonation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 419 and 420, alongside cyber offenses under the Information Technology (IT) Act, Sections 66(D) and 66(C).
The detailed order, dated September 8, 2023, highlighted the gravity of the accusations and the imperative need for custodial interrogation to unearth the full extent of a large-scale, inter-state fraud operation.
The Allegations: A Part-Time Job Scam
The case stems from a complaint lodged by Sri. Chandaka Srikanth on June 14, 2023. The complainant alleged that he was contacted on Telegram by an individual named ‘Nita Sampath’ on June 2, 2023, offering a part-time job involving product reviews on a website, “www.iglobal-review.net.” After providing reviews for 35 products and receiving a minor commission of ₹820, the complainant was induced to transfer a massive sum of ₹26 lakhs to the accused through various online UPI and IMPS transactions, believing the words of the alleged fraudster. Upon realizing he had been cheated, the complainant filed a police report, leading to the registration of FIR No. 747/2023.
Petitioner’s Defense and Counter-Allegation
Akhil Alby, through his counsel, argued that he was falsely implicated, asserting that he was not named in the original FIR and that the account numbers mentioned did not belong to him. Crucially, the petitioner raised a serious counter-allegation concerning his apprehension by the Whitefield CEN Police in Cochin, along with one Joseph Nikhil. Alby claimed that the police team had demanded a bribe of ₹5 lakhs each to let them go and had allegedly collected ₹3,95,000 from them before being “caught red-handedly” by the Kerala Police. Based on this, a separate FIR (No. 1626/2023) was registered at the Kalamasherry Police Station against the Investigating Officer (IO) for offenses including wrongful confinement and extortion (Sections 342, 384, 385 read with 34 of IPC).
The petitioner further stated that he had received a notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. to present himself at the respondent/Police Station, which led to the apprehension of his arrest and the consequent filing of the anticipatory bail plea.
Court’s Rationale for Rejection
The Court, after hearing both the petitioner’s counsel and the Public Prosecutor, and meticulously reviewing the Case Diary (CD) and the material evidence, determined that granting anticipatory bail was not in the interest of justice.
1. Prima Facie Involvement in Organised Crime:
The Investigating Officer’s progress, as documented in the CD, revealed an organised, hierarchical racket spanning multiple states. The investigation traced the fraudulent transactions through a chain of individuals: from the initial account holder (Ishaq) to Nishant and Parish, then to Noushad in Kerala, and subsequently to Joseph Nikhil of Kochi, who in turn allegedly provided the bank account information and documents to the present petitioner, Akhil Alby. The chain of information established a prima facie link between the petitioner and the crime syndicate.
2. Custodial Interrogation is Mandatory:
The Court noted that the magnitude of the fraud involved “lakhs together transactions” and the freezing of over 100 bank accounts. Given the serious nature of the offenses, which pose a severe threat to individuals’ financial stability, the court emphasized that custodial enquiry of the petitioner is “mandatory” to ascertain the real culprits, collect details of the Virtual Private Network (VPN) usage, and WhatsApp call records.
3. Misleading the Court:
The judge pointed out an attempt by the petitioner’s side to mislead the Court regarding the counter-case against the IO. While the petitioner’s application implied the FIR against the IO was filed based on Akhil Alby’s complaint, the court’s scrutiny of the translated complaint copy showed it was filed by the Police Inspector himself. This observation severely damaged the petitioner’s credibility.
4. Risk of Absconding and Tampering:
Applying the well-settled principles governing bail applications, including the gravity of the accusation, the severity of punishment, and the risk of absconding, the Court observed that since the petitioner is a resident of Kerala, releasing him on bail could lead to him absconding and obstructing the investigation.
The final verdict explicitly stated that in the peculiar circumstances of a sophisticated cybercrime racket, bail cannot be granted “merely on the concept of liberty.” Consequently, the anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was rejected.
This court decision is a clear signal that Indian courts are prioritizing the thorough investigation and dismantling of large-scale cyber-economic offenses, viewing them as serious threats to the nation’s financial fabric, and will not hesitate to mandate custodial interrogation for high-level suspects.
You can find more on the legal aspects of pre-arrest bail in the context of IT Act cases in this Anticipatory Bail in IT Act Cases | Section 438 CrPC video.