New Delhi [India], October 1 (ANI): A Delhi court has granted regular bail to two accused arrested in an alleged Rs 1.15-crore cyber fraud case, holding that their continued detention would not serve any useful purpose and observing that the grounds of their arrest were not communicated to them in the language in which they were educated and understood.
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler allowed the bail applications of Yogeshbhai and Amit Gohil, who were arrested on September 2, in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, in connection with an FIR registered at the Police Station Special Cell, New Delhi, for alleged offences under Sections 308, 318(4), 319 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Advocates Syed Kamran Ali and Yusuf Khan appeared for the accused.
The court directed that both applicants be released on regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each with one surety of the like amount, subject to several conditions.
The court particularly examined the manner in which the grounds of arrest were communicated to the accused. It noted that the document was prepared in Hindi with English words and banking particulars. Both applicants had studied up to the primary level in Gujarat-medium schools, with Hindi recorded as a subject.
The investigating officer had stated that the applicants understood Hindi and that copies of the grounds of arrest had also been provided to their family members. However, the court examined the issue in light of the constitutional requirement that an arrested person must be meaningfully informed of the grounds for curtailment of liberty.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments including Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, the court observed that the requirement was not merely to hand over a document containing the grounds of arrest, but to ensure that the arrested person actually understands the reasons for the arrest to enable them to consult counsel and seek appropriate legal remedies.
The court also considered the issue of notices issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on the same day as the arrest. It referred to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State of NCT of Delhi, noting that the provision does not prescribe a fixed minimum period between service of notice and arrest.
At the same time, the court observed that cyber and digital-fraud investigations can involve evidence stored on mobile phones, computers and other electronic devices, which may potentially be deleted or remotely wiped. Therefore, custodial interrogation may be necessary in an appropriate case. However, the court said the investigating officer must assess whether such custody is actually required in the facts of the case.
As per the prosecution case, the complainant, a senior citizen, allegedly received calls from persons impersonating officials of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and was subsequently connected with persons posing as Mumbai Crime Branch officials. She was allegedly subjected to a “digital arrest” and transferred around Rs 56 lakhs into an ICICI Bank account.
The investigation also referred to approximately Rs 1.15 crore received across two complaints. The agency alleged that Yogeshbhai was the account-holder and trustee of Shri Satnam Charitable Trust, into whose account the Rs 56 lakh was allegedly credited. Amit Gohil was alleged to have facilitated the opening of the account, handed over banking credentials to associates and acted as a facilitator.
The court observed that the precise role and extent of participation of the applicants, including the allegations concerning the opening and operation of the bank account, were matters to be determined at trial.
The court also took note that the applicants had remained in custody since September 2 and that two days of police custody had already been sought and availed. It recorded that the devices stated to have been recovered had been seized.
While keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that the complainant was a senior citizen, the court held that the continued detention of the applicants would not serve any useful purpose, subject to stringent bail conditions.
Under the conditions, the accused were directed to join and cooperate with the investigation, appear before the trial court on each date unless exempted, not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and produce any device, document or credential required by the investigating officer.
They were also directed not to leave India without prior permission of the trial court. If they held passports, the same were required to be surrendered before the trial court, and they were restrained from applying for fresh passports without its permission. (ANI)
Related reading
