AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 291 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 25 of 2024, under Section 420, 120B, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station Cyber Thana, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to the FIR, the informant was told that Kriti Chakra grant for his son has been cancelled and if it is to be revived, the informant was required to contact a person in Defence Ministry. The informant proceeded as told to him. He was required to deposit money in various accounts. He received telephone calls from various numbers. Total more than Rs.44 Lakh was deposited by the informant and then he came to know that he has been cheated.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no evidence against the applicant. Merely based on his confessional statement, he has been implicated.
Learned State counsel would submit that it is a case of online fraud. One of the telephone numbers, which was used in the commission of crime was recovered from the applicant. He has referred to the recovery memo
It is a case of online fraud. These offences are done with utmost secrecy and meticulously. In the instant case, it is the specific case of the prosecution that one of the mobile numbers that has been used in the commission of crime was recovered from the applicant.
Having considered this and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to the rejected.
The bail application is rejected.