MHCC020034512024
1
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR. BOMBAY
Criminal Bail Application No.531 of 2024
Saajan Dukharam Kewat
Age 22 years, Occ: Social Media,
R/at :- Room No.830, Jai Bharat Mata
Nagar, behind Sankat mochar Sudhar
Samiti Dalda Company, Sion,
Mumbai – 22
..Applicant/accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of Dongari
Police Station, Mumbai.
(Crime No.265 of 2023)
…Respondent/State
Coram : DR. Shri S. D. Tawshikar
(Court No. 10)
Heard on : 13.03.2024
Decided on : 13.03.2024
Appearance:
Adv. Mr. Zaid Siddiqui for applicant/accused.
Addl. P.P. Mr. Ajit Chavan for Respondent/State.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC” in short) before filing of charge-sheet in
in connection with C.R.No.265 of 2023, registered with Dongari Police
Station for an offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468,471
2
Cri.B.A.531-2024
r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” in short) and section 66
(D) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.
2.

Perused application and reply (Exhibit-03) filed by the State. Heard
both sides extensively.
3.

It has been alleged in the FIR that informant namely Sanjiv Gupta
met with anonymous person (pretended as a lady) on Hashtag Dating by
Locanto website (noreply@locanti.me) having mobile No.XXXXXXX453. The
said lady introduced herself to be an Architect at Dubai. She lured informant
to invest some amount in Foreign Exchange Trading and assured handsome
returns. Said lady sent a link (on ‘Telegram’) and by using said link informant
initially invested some small amount and received good returns. Thereafter,
between 20.10.2023 to 13.11.2023, on advised of said anonymous lady,
informant invested a sum of One Crore fifty-six lakh. The account reflected
benefit of sum of Rs.2,08,45,040/- (Two Crore Eight lakh forty-five thousand
forty only) to the informant. When, he tried to withdraw the said amount,
she told informant to deposit an amount of Rs.62,00,000/- (Sixty two Lakhs
only) as a tax. When, informant inquired as to why tax needs to be paid, then
said telegram-account become non operational (close). Thus, he realized that
he has been cheated and therefore he lodged FIR. Informant has given details
of his payment on various accounts.
4.

Mr. Zaid Siddiqui, learned advocate of applicant submits that
applicant is falsely implicated in this offence. In fact, he himself is a victim.
His mobile, Telegram account as well as SIM Card was taken by co-accused
Ashish Khere. He misused Telegram account of the applicant. The learned
advocate for applicant submits that seven co-accused are already released on
bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Investigation with respect to
3
Cri.B.A.531-2024
present applicant is practically over and therefore, he may be released on
bail.
5.

The learned advocate for applicant keeps reliance on judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti V/s
Govt. of NCT of Delhi. He submits that at the most offence under section 420
of IPC would get attracted which is punishable up-to seven years. He further
submits that once Information and Technology Act is invoke, general penal
law i.e. Indian Penal Code would not be applicable. He submits that in
present case when the offence under sections 66 (c) and 66 (d) of
Information and Technology Act are invoked, there cannot be applicable
other sections under IPC.
6.

Per contra Mr. Ajit Chavan, the Ld APP, strongly objects
application. He submits that investigation is still in progress. Applicant was in
fact mastermind of the offence. He has opened several bank accounts with
name of co-accused and has used the same to cheat innocent person like
informant. He submits that huge amount of informant is siphoned off in eight
bank accounts of co-accused. He submits that many co-accused are yet to be
arrested. If bail is granted to the applicant then that would hamper further
investigation.
7.

Investigating Officer is present. He submits that present
transactions are spread over in seven States, involves multiple bank amounts
from which amounts are withdrawn from Gujarat, Haryana, and Karnataka
etc. places. He submits that there is large scale syndicate operating in such
Cyber and online frauds and therefore bail may not be granted.
8.

From the FIR it can be gathered that huge amount i.e. One Crore
4
Cri.B.A.531-2024
Fifty-six Lakh of informant is siphoned off on the false pretext of investment.

The telegram-account of present applicant is used to cheat the informant. So
also his mobile is also used in operating his telegram-account. It appears that
prima facie present applicant is having lead role in the alleged offence.
Therefore, ground of parity cannot be applicable to present applicant.
9.

The authority (supra) relied by learned advocate for applicant
mainly deals with an offence with respect of sale obscene material. It appears
that case under section 292 of IPC and Section 67 of Information and
Technology Act was invoked. The Hon’ble Apex Court ultimately found that
when provisions under special statute are invoked, then section 292 of IPC
cannot be invoked. As such FIR came to be quashed by Hon’ble Apex Court.
However, in matter in hand case is all together different, here there are clear
allegations of cheating, misrepresentation, forgery, impersonation etc.
Prosecution has also added sections 467, 468 along-with sections 66 (c) and
66 (d) of the Information and Technology Act. Hence, I am of the view that
authority would not be applicable in present matter.
10.

Admittedly, investigation is still in progress. The other co-accused
are yet to be arrested. The amount of cheating is not yet traced out. Such
cyber/online frauds are increasing day by day with different techniques.
Science and technology is being misused for siphoning off the hard money of
common people. Such offences are always difficult to track, as the minds
operating behind it are highly educated and professional. Hence, law needs
to be stringent on such kind of offences. Releasing accused lightly on bail
would set wrong precedent and will give wrong message to the potential
cyber criminals. I find that releasing applicant on bail at this stage would
hamper further investigation. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise
discretion under section 439 of Cr.P.C. Hence, I pass following order-
5
Cri.B.A.531-2024
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No. 531 of 2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

Date : 13-03-2024
Dictated on
: 13-03-2024
Transcribed on
: 15.03.2024 & 16.03.2024
Corrected on
: 16-03-2024 (AOH)
(Public holiday i.e. Sunday 17.03.2024)
Signed on
: 18-03-2024
(Dr. S. D. Tawshikar)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
C.R.No.10
6
Cri.B.A.531-2024
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
18-03-2024 at 02:00p.m.

NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Mr. G. N. Sutar
Name of the Judge
(with Court Room No.)
Date of
ORDER
Pronouncement
Dr. S.D. Tawshikar
C.R. No.10
of
JUDGMENT/ 13-03-2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O. on
18-03-2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
18-03-2024