Arun Soman And Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is the first application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by petitionersâ€"Arun Soman and Leslie Thomas

Tharakan in Crime No.218/2019, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Stationâ€"Bagli, Districtâ€"Dewas.

Facts in brief are that on 26/04/2019, complainant Dharmendra S/o Munnalal Patel lodged a written complaint that few days prior, he came in touch

with one Sanjay Sharma, who allured him to make money by playing online game. He persuaded him stating that by betting on any particular number,

he may get multi fold return on his bet. He revealed that Engineers Arun Soman and Lesli Thomson (petitioners) are running this online game, while

co-accused persons Siddharth Chourasiya and Avinash Chourasiya of Mumbai, are owner of this game and manage and control everything of the

game. He claimed that he has taken franchise of this game of Madhya Pradesh. He explained the procedure that by depositing some amount, he will

provide him ID and password and by using them, he can bet any amount on any number and if the number opens, he will get many a times more

money than bet by him. He assured him that there is no possibility of cheating etc. because the software of this online game keeps on changing from

Mumbai to avoid manipulation. On his instigation, the complainant started to play with Rs.500/-. Sanjay Sharma provided him ID and password. He bet

amount on various numbers many times but never won. Every time he lost the money deposited in the online account of developers/owners of the

game. When his loss touched about a lakh rupees, he got frustrated and was going to end his life, but on the advice of one of his friend Brajesh, he

approached the police and lodged the FIR alleging that he was duped by the operator and owners of the game.

The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is made on the grounds that the petitioners are resident of Kerala. They have never visited Madhya

Pradesh or particularly the Indore. They have never forced the complainant to play online game. They never personally interacted or physically met

with the complainant. No money was received by them. The action of the complainant is malafide, as until he was winning, he never made complaint

but as soon as he lost in the game, he lodged FIR to settle his scores by abusing the authority of law, therefore, the petitioner be granted anticipatory

bail.

In reply, it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners are named in the FIR. They are Directors of the Company, who prepared

and running the game. The petitioners have received the money in their accounts through Paytm and other payment interfaces. Co-accused have also

named him. The Trial Court has dismissed the bail observing that the Hon'ble Supreme Court inU nion of India Vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and

others reported in (2008) 13 SCC 305 has laid down the law that the power of granting anticipatory bail is extraordinary in character and only in

exceptional cases where it appears that a person is falsely implicated or a frivolous case is launched against him or there are reasonable grounds for

holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, such power may be exercised.

It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the offence alleged against the petitioner is based on very sophisticated software and is

a complex offence. Ordinary person cannot understand or detect the flaws. It needs investigation by highly skilled technocrat and at the same time

requires full cooperation and custodial interrogation of the accused persons to crack the track and password and to decode the code word and find out

the malpractices, therefore, at the initial stage of the investigation, anticipatory bail to the petitioners will hamper the investigation, as it is a fact of

common experience that after getting bail, people usually do not cooperate with the investigation and only express ignorance for the questions put

before them.

Further, it is asserted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners are maker/developer of the game. They know its all minute details. Most

of the evidence necessary to establish the guilt is stored or saved in the sophisticated electronic devices and is protected by confidential ID passwords

etc. The police is trying to secure services of such highly skilled and qualified professionals, who can decode the software or can crack the passwords

or computers etc. All these need time and cooperation with custodial interrogation of the petitioners, therefore, anticipatory bail be not granted.

It is further averred that looking to the nature of data, skill and ability of the petitioners to operate electronic devices, possibility cannot be ruled out

that after coming out, they can make the evidence of the crime disappeared by deleting or corrupting the same. They can also siphoned the money,

which is the proceed of the crime, electronically.

It is asserted that this is a case of online gambling. The complainant and many other persons were allured to bet on a game, predominantly

depending on the chance. Gambling is ban in the State of M.P. Investigation is at initial stage. The police have still to collect evidence to establish the

crime. Certain allegations have been made by the complainant, which have to be investigated, in case of release of the petitioners, they may distort the

evidence saved in clouds and other sophisticated electronic devises and is protected by passwords etc., which can be operated from anywhere in the

world by using confidential ID and password. The petitioners have deceived hundreds of people by crores of rupees and have deposited the same in

their accounts abroad, therefore, they be not granted anticipatory bail.

Looking to the nature and complexity of the crime, nature of evidence to be collected, status of investigation and other facts and circumstances of

the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage, therefore, the same is

denied and the petition is dismissed and disposed off.