© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Delhi High Court has highlighted the “alarming rise” of cybercrime and digital scams in the country and said such offences are not “constrained by geographical boundaries but can be perpetrated remotely by individuals operating from any part of India”, leaving victims scattered across jurisdictions.
Justice Ajay Digpaul’s order passed on November 3, as a result, denied bail to two men accused of duping investors in the garb of online trading.
“This court cannot lose sight of the alarming rise in cybercrimes and financial fraud across the country. Such offences are not constrained by geographical boundaries and can be perpetrated remotely by individuals operating from any part of India, often leaving victims scattered across jurisdictions,” the order read.
Justice Digpaul observed that the allegations in the present case demand” heightened judicial caution” for “leniency at the bail stage could risk undermining deterrence in offences that are both trans-territorial and technologically complex”.
The Intelligence Fusion & Strategic Operations (IFSO) unit of Delhi Police Special Cell received multiple complaints from persons who were allegedly cheated through online investment groups created on WhatsApp and Telegram, operated under the name―CHCSES.
The complainants alleged that they were induced to invest in online trading through fake applications and websites, and after substantial sums were transferred, the accused persons stopped responding and blocked their access.
On the basis of the complaints, the police registered an FIR in February, 2024 under Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC and Sections 66C (identity theft) and 66D (cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the IT Act.
The complaint of one Vishal Sodhi formed the foundation of the FIR, in which it was alleged that he was induced to transfer Rs 29.5 lakh to an account maintained with Punjab National Bank, Dwarka Branch, in the name of ― R.S. Trading.
Investigations revealed that the bank account was registered under the name of one Rinku Singh.
The probe further led the police to one Munish Sharma, from whose possession, five cell phones were recovered. Forensic tests of the devices revealed that it was logged into the email account associated with R.S. Trading.
Sharma later disclosed that he, along with one Gaurav Kumar, used to procure and sell pre-opened bank accounts and credentials to other individuals for money.
He was stated to have revealed that these accounts were being sold to one Ram Kumar Raman, who would, in turn, provide them to certain foreign-based individuals engaged in online scams. It was also disclosed that Kumar procured the credentials of “Rinku Singh” through one Paramjit Kharb, who had created identity documents in that name.
Kharb allegedly told the police he fabricated Aadhaar and PAN cards in the assumed identity “Rinku Singh” and opened several bank accounts and registered the firm “R.S. Trading”.
These accounts were allegedly sold to co-accused Kumar and Sharma for Rs 50,000 each. In turn, those accounts were resold to Raman for Rs 1 lakh per account, who allegedly supplied them to others operating from Dubai.
All the accused were chargesheeted by the police. Kharb and Raman moved the high court seeking bail in the case.
Advocates Anurag Ojha and Nipun Gupta appearing for Kharb and Raman respectively, argued their clients were being framed. They submitted that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon disclosures of co-accused persons, without any independent corroborative evidence connecting either petitioner to the actual commission of the crime.
Additional public prosecutor Meenakshi Dahiya opposed bail plea and argued that the material collected during investigation unmistakably establishes the complicity of both applicants in a “well-organised cyber-fraud syndicate”.
“The modus operandi involved the creation of forged identities and the opening of multiple bank accounts which were thereafter sold for use in cheating operations,” she added.
The high court examined the material on record and observed that it prima facie discloses a “clear nexus” between the petitioners and the forged identities, bank accounts, recoveries, and the act of providing remote access to persons based in Dubai — all of formed part of the offence.
“Considering the gravity of the allegations, the organised manner in which the offence appears to have been executed, and the ongoing investigation into a wider conspiracy, this Court finds no justification for their enlargement on bail at this juncture,” it held.
