The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay has granted regular bail to Mohammad Ayyub Yakub Shaikh, an accused in a significant cyber fraud case involving a “part-time job” scam. H.H. Additional Sessions Judge V. M. Sundale (Court Room No. 27), in an order dated April 25, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 994 of 2024, ruled that the mere tracing of a commission amount to the applicant’s account was not sufficient ground for his indefinite detention, especially when nothing was recovered from him during police custody. Mr. Shaikh was arrested in connection with Crime No. 206/2024 registered at Vakola Police Station for offenses under Sections 420 (Cheating) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.

Details of the Online Job Scam

The case revolves around a common type of modern fraud where the accused individuals allegedly operate a “very big cyber network to cheat the public at large,” according to the prosecution. The specific incident involved the accused and co-accused inducing the informant with an assurance of a part-time job at “Cleartrip Private Limited.” Under false pretenses, they convinced the informant to transfer a substantial sum, resulting in a total loss of ₹8,16,200/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs, Sixteen Thousand, Two Hundred), thereby cheating the victim. The charges invoked reflect the dual nature of the crime—cheating under the IPC and identity theft/fraudulent use of communication under the IT Act.

Prosecution’s Opposition and Tracing Evidence

The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Ms. Ratnavali Patil, strongly opposed the bail application. Their opposition was based on the gravity of the offense, alleging that the applicant was part of a large-scale cyber network. The key piece of evidence cited against Mr. Shaikh was that during the course of the investigation, it was transpired that an amount of ₹50,000/- was directly transferred to the applicant’s bank account as “commission” from the fraudulently obtained funds. The investigating officer contended that the offense was serious, the investigation was still in progress, and since the applicant is a resident of Uttar Pradesh (though residing in Nalasopara, Palghar), there was a high possibility of him fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, or pressurizing witnesses if released.

Court’s Rationale: Lack of Recovery and Indefinite Detention

The Court, after carefully examining the records and submissions, found the prosecution’s objections insufficient to warrant continued judicial custody. The decisive factors that weighed in favor of granting bail were:

1. Name Not in FIR: The Court noted that the applicant’s name was not mentioned in the original First Information Report (FIR), meaning his involvement was discovered later through financial trail analysis.
2. No Recovery from Custody: The applicant was arrested on March 28, 2024, and had undergone police custody until March 30, 2024. The Court specifically recorded that “nothing could be recovered from the applicant” during this period.
3. Severity of Punishment: The charges levelled against the applicant are punishable with imprisonment to the extent of seven years, which generally favors the grant of bail over rejection, especially when the main investigation is complete.
4. No Criminal Antecedents: The prosecution failed to place on record any evidence of the applicant’s past criminal antecedents.
5. Indefinite Detention Unwarranted: The Court held that there were “no extra ordinary circumstances to keep the applicant behind bar for indefinite period” pending the completion of the remaining part of the investigation.

The Judge concluded that the prosecution’s apprehension of the applicant fleeing or tampering with witnesses could be adequately managed by imposing certain stringent conditions.

Conditions Imposed for Judicial Release

The Criminal Bail Application No. 994 of 2024 was allowed. Mohammad Ayyub Yakub Shaikh was released on bail subject to executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹50,000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount. Key conditions imposed include:

• Provisional Cash Bail: Provisional cash bail in the like amount was allowed for four weeks, during which the applicant must furnish the necessary surety.
• Reporting Requirement: The applicant is directed to attend the Vakola Police Station once a week on every Wednesday between 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. till the filing of the charge-sheet and co-operate with the investigating agency.
• Non-Tampering: The applicant must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or pressurize any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• Travel Restriction: The applicant shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

This order serves as a reminder that in financial cyber fraud cases, while tracing the money trail is crucial, the absence of prior criminal records and the lack of subsequent recovery from the accused often tilt the judicial balance toward granting liberty, provided stringent conditions are met.