The Court of Session for Greater Bombay, in an order delivered on April 18th, 2024, granted conditional bail to Vinay Prakash Mishra in a significant cyber fraud case. The ruling, set forth in Criminal Bail Application No. 914 of 2024, addressed charges related to cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy, and provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act, stemming from C.R. No. 4/2024 registered at the Cyber Police Station, Central Division, Mumbai. The applicant was booked under Sections 419 (Cheating by personation), 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), and 120-B (Criminal conspiracy) of the IPC, along with Section 66(D) of the IT Act. Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne determined that the evidence connecting Mr. Mishra to the crime was based on “mere suspicion,” justifying his release.
The Nexus: ₹50 Lakh Cyber Fraud and the Applicant’s Association
The core of the prosecution’s case revolved around a large-scale cyber fraud where the complainant, Miss Kawaljit Surendrasingh Kaur, was defrauded of ₹50,41,597/-. The scam involved enticing the victim through WhatsApp and Telegram messages to subscribe to a YouTube channel and perform online tasks, initially offering commission to build trust before inducing her to invest increasingly larger sums of money with the promise of high returns.
During the investigation, police traced an amount of ₹5 lakhs from the defrauded funds to a bank account held by co-accused Pooja Bandwar. The link to the present applicant, Vinay Prakash Mishra, was established when he was “found with the accused Pooja Bandwar” during an investigation or arrest. The prosecution’s entire material against Mr. Mishra rested on the fact that he was present at the residence of the co-accused and, more significantly, that his mobile phone contained photographs of himself “with the bundle of currency notes,” which the police suspected to be part of the fraud amount.
Judicial Scrutiny: Role Based on “Mere Suspicion”
Mr. Mishra’s counsel, Advocate Rohan Sawant, argued that the applicant was innocent, had been arrested solely on “mere suspicion,” and had no criminal antecedent. Since his arrest on March 15th, 2024, he had undergone custodial interrogation, and his mobile handset had been recovered, suggesting that further detention was unnecessary, especially since he was a permanent resident and unlikely to abscond.
The prosecution, represented by APP Hire, opposed the application on the usual grounds of potential flight risk, witness tampering, and impact on evidence collection.
However, the court, upon reviewing the records, found the evidence against Mr. Mishra to be tenuous. Judge Sasne explicitly noted that “The role attributed to the present applicant / accused is only about these photographs.” The court further stated that the prosecution had “no other material which will connect the applicant with accused Pooja Bandwar” beyond the circumstance of his physical presence at her house. Given that the main perpetrator, Pooja Bandwar, in whose account the money was credited, was already arrested, and the applicant’s role was “based on mere suspicion,” the court ruled that Mr. Mishra was entitled to be released on bail. The court underscored that pre-trial incarceration based on such thin evidence would be unjustified.
Conditions Imposed for Conditional Release
The court allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 914 of 2024. Vinay Prakash Mishra was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a Personal Bond (P.B.) and a Surety Bond (S.B.) of ₹25,000/- with one or two sureties.
To ensure judicial oversight and cooperation with the continuing investigation into the larger network of the cyber fraud, the following conditions were imposed:
The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and evidence in any manner. He is required to attend the concerned police station on the 2nd and 4th Saturday of every month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till the filing of the charge sheet. Recognizing the need for prompt release, the court also allowed for a provisional cash bail in the like amount for a period of four weeks, after which the formal surety must be furnished, failing which the cash bail would stand forfeited. Finally, the applicant is prohibited from leaving India without the prior permission of the Court. This order highlights the judiciary’s caution against prolonged detention where the material evidence against an accused is weak or based predominantly on conjecture.