Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the petitioner-applicant under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking grant of regular bail in the FIR for the offences under Sections 384, 385, 420, 468, 420, 471, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, opined that Rs. 140 crores were found in the bank account of the present petitioner and it was not convincing that he did not know about the dealings in his account statements, as the customers of the bank account get regular alerts about the transactions in their accounts. Furthermore, the petitioner’s wife was also working in a private bank and therefore, they would have been aware that their bank accounts were being used by some other persons for illegal purposes, as according to them Rs. 140 crores in their bank account did not belong to them. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court opined that it was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Background
In the instant case, the FIR was registered from a complaint lodged by the complainant, wherein it was alleged that he received messages for loan for third COVID-19 vaccine dose on his mobile phone and the messages also had a link for checking eligibility. Further, as soon as the complainant opened the link, mobile application namely Express Loan was downloaded. When the complainant filed the details of his Aadhar Card and PAN Card in the application, Rs. 4,200 instantly credited in his bank account.
However, after four days of availing such loan, he started receiving threatening calls from the developers of ‘Express Loan’ Application and these developers somehow got the access to the contacts stored in his mobile phone and to threaten the complainant, they started sending morphed images to his contacts. During the course of inquiry, the complaint against ‘Express Loan’ Application was checked on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and 46 more complaints were found to have been registered against the alleged mobile application. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered.
Thereafter, upon further investigation, another complainant also reported that Rs. 25 lakhs had been extorted from him in different accounts by morphing his images and sending to his relatives. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the bank statement of the complainant revealed that the transaction amount had been received by the present petitioner in his bank accounts.
The petitioner stated that he was an innocent victim who himself was not aware of the transaction which were taking place in his bank accounts and also, he had been falsely implicated in the present case and had been in judicial custody since 02-10-2022.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court upon perusal of the material on record, opined that prima facie it was revealed that the modus operandi adopted by the present petitioner was such that firstly, a victim received an SMS which contained link for checking eligibility for C OVID-19 dose vaccine and as soon as the link was opened, a mobile application named ‘Express Loan’ was downloaded. Thereafter, the victim was asked to fill details of Aadhar Card and PAN Card after installing the application. The victim was then baited with the offer for grant of loan of small amounts and once such conditions were accepted, the victims unknowingly gave access to all their contacts and images to the application developers. After which, the victims were threatened by the accused and the morphed images of the victims were shared with their contacts to extort the money from them.
Further, upon perusal of the status report, the Court opined that the large number of complaints had been reported from across the country in which the present petitioner was found involved. The Court noted that modus operandi employed by the cyber criminals changed and evolved every day. Sensitised to the plight of unsuspecting individuals who fell victim to the deceptive mobile petitioners, the Court had the responsibility to address the grievances of people, who in pursuit of the technology ended up being defrauded of their hard-earned money. The Court opined that the application developers took advantage of cyber-illiteracy of the people, who unknowingly gave access to their contacts and images to a mobile application, which was then misused to extort money from them.
The Court opined that the bait of getting short term loans on a click of a button and defrauding them of their hard-earned money was nowadays common and the cyber illiteracy of common citizens was being taken advantage of by such accused. Such offences extended beyond immediate financial losses associated with the fraudulent transactions and it was the economy at large which suffered through immediate loss and it was also the loss of people’s trust in the online financial transactions.
The Court opined that these cyber enabled offences breached individual trust and had far reaching consequences that reverberate through economic landscapes of the country. These online frauds contribute to the eroding trust of people in online financial transactions and thus, discourage the newcomers into entering the digital realm, which negatively impacted the overall economy of the country.
The Court opined that the alleged fraud in the present case had taken place at the most difficult times of our country and citizens of our country were suffering losses, many had lost business due to the pandemic and were looking for survival in the market and earning for themselves. The Court opined that Rs. 140 Crores were found in the bank account of the present petitioner and it was not convincing that he did not know about the dealings in his account statements, as the customers of the bank account get regular alerts about the transactions in their accounts. Furthermore, the petitioner’s wife was also working in a private bank and therefore, they would have been aware that their bank accounts were being used by some other persons for illegal purposes, since according to them the transaction of Rs. 140 crores in their bank account did not belong to them.
Thus, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and also, the petitioner’s conduct with regard to vacating all the addresses which were used for opening bank accounts and that he was apprehended only after rigorous CDR and IP log analysis by Special Cell, since he had already switched off all his mobile phones used for bank accounts, the Court opined that it was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at the present stage.
[Vineet Jhavar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7734, decided on 06-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Shobha Gupta, Sanskriti Sankutala, Simarjeet Kaur and Manasvi Negi, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Manoj Pant, APP for the State with SI Manoj Kumar, P.S. Special Cell; Devanshu Chauhan, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
