The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay has rejected the regular bail application of Khusal Rameshbhai Dobariya, one of the accused in a complex cyber fraud case involving the creation of forged booking links for IPL 2024 cricket matches. Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne (Court Room No. 30), in an order dated April 25, 2024, ruled that the applicant’s proven involvement through his bank account receiving the proceeds of the crime demonstrated a “vital role” in the conspiracy, which was enough to deny bail. The Court also stressed that the investigation was still at a “primary stage.” Mr. Dobariya was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 17/2024 registered with the South Cyber Police Station, Mumbai, for offenses under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology (IT) Act.
The IPL Ticket Fraud Allegations
The case originated from a report lodged by informant Anil Makhija, whose company was targeted by the scam. The core allegation was that unknown accused individuals created forged online links of “BookMyShow” to deceptively offer ticket bookings for the high-demand IPL 2024 cricket matches. This sophisticated cyber scheme successfully cheated both the informant’s company and the “general public” out of substantial funds. The charges reflect the full scope of the conspiracy: cheating by personation, forgery, use of forged documents, criminal conspiracy, and identity theft/fraudulent use of communication under the IT Act.
The Applicant’s Plea and Prosecution’s Stance
The applicant, represented by Advocate Mr. Shailesh S. Kharat, sought bail on typical grounds: he was innocent and falsely implicated, had completed custodial interrogation since his arrest on March 30, 2024, and had nothing further to be seized or recovered from his possession. The defense argued that his continued detention was pointless, as he was a permanent resident of Gujarat.
The prosecution, through A.P.P. Mr. Iqbal Solakar, strongly opposed the application. They argued that releasing the accused would “affect the collection of evidence” and that since the investigation was not completed, there were high chances the accused could flee from justice, tamper with evidence, or threaten prosecution witnesses. The prosecution insisted that the seriousness and complexity of the cyber network fraud necessitated continued custody.
Court’s Finding on Applicant’s “Vital Role”
The Sessions Judge meticulously reviewed the application and the evidence presented, focusing on the quality of the applicant’s connection to the crime rather than simply the lack of physical recovery. The Court highlighted two critical pieces of evidence:
- Bank Account Involvement: It was “revealed that the accused applicant has facilitated the commission of offence,” and specifically, “His bank accounts was involved in the offence, in which the amount of online booking tickets has been deposited.” This established a direct financial link to the fraudulently obtained money.
- CCTV Footage: The prosecution also presented “evidence of CC TV footage,” further connecting the applicant to the criminal operations.
The Court determined that this evidence showed the accused applicant “has played vital role in commission of this offence.”
Judicial Conclusion: Investigation Integrity Prevails
The Judge found the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the evidence sufficient to deny bail. The Court ruled that because the investigation was still at a “primary stage” and the applicant had played a “vital role,” his release on bail would “hamper the investigation.”
Consequently, the Court held that the accused was not entitled for the bail at this juncture. Criminal Bail Application No. 970 of 2024 was rejected, sending a clear message that direct financial involvement in large-scale cyber fraud warrants continued judicial custody to ensure the detailed investigation of the sophisticated network can proceed unhindered.