Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ashish Naithani, J

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ravinder Kumar, seeking regular bail in connection with FI R No. 15 of 2024, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offenses punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I PC) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the State. Perused the records.

The learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Anchit Khokher contends that the applicant has been in judicial custody since June 29, 2024 and has been falsely implicated in the case and that he has no connection with the alleged offense. I t is argued that the applicant’s name does not appear in the FIR and that he was arrested merely on the basis of suspicion. Furthermore, it is submitted that the applicant is a person of limited education and lacks the technical expertise to execute such a sophisticated cybercrime.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State, Mr. S.C. Dumka, strongly opposes the bail application, submitting that the applicant is a key conspirator in a well-organized cyber fraud scheme, who’s name surfaced during investigation.

The learned A.G.A., alleges that the applicant, under the guise of a financial advisor, induced the complainant into transferring substantial sums of money under false pretences. It is further submitted that significant evidence, including digital records, bank transactions, and witness statements, establishes the applicant’s role in orchestrating the fraudulent activities.

Upon an independent examination of the case record, this Court finds that the allegations against the applicant pertain to an intricate cybercrime scheme involving financial fraud amounting to ₹89,20,000/-. The investigation has revealed that multiple bank accounts and digital payment channels were used to launder the defrauded amount, and several financial instruments, including debit cards, passbooks, and mobile SIM cards, were recovered from the applicant’s possession.

The nature of the offense is such that it involves a high degree of planning and coordination, making the possibility of tampering with digital evidence and influencing witnesses a serious concern. Given the complexity of cyber fraud investigations, where electronic records and financial transactions form the primary basis of evidence, granting bail at this stage could ham per the state’s ability to trace the full extent of the fraudulent network.

Furthermore, the applicant’s role in facilitating and executing fraudulent transactions cannot be considered peripheral or incidental. The forensic analysis of digital devices and financial trail presented by the State prima facie indicates that the applicant was in direct communication with other co-accused. Furthermore, the bank account statements shows that fraudulently obtained funds from victims were deposited into accounts controlled by the applicant.

Additionally, during the course of investigation multiple recoveries like - five debit cards, seven cheque books from different banks, six passbooks, 27 activated SIM cards, a QR scanner linked to a fraudulent bank account and a seal of Pranya Health Care (suspected to be a shell company), have been made.

On perusal of the records at this juncture and on hearing the learned counsels of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that cases involving cyber fraud require a heightened degree of judicial scrutiny, given their far-reaching implications on public confidence in financial security and digital transactions. The scale of financial deception, the manner in which the fraud was executed, and the potential risk of evidence tampering weigh against the grant of bail at this stage.

Without going into further details as it m ay affects the merits of the case, the court is of the opinion that the gravity of the allegations, the extensive financial losses incurred, and the strength of the evidence placed on record, this Court finds no sufficient ground to grant bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected.