Sumit Kumar Gupta vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the sole accused in Crime No.24/2023 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the petitioner for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner was arrested on 30.11.2023.

The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 09.06.2023 at about 11 a.m, the accused contacted the first informant's husband and made false promises of providing him an online job and profits and accordingly he induced him to transfer an amount of Rs.51,27,374/- to different bank accounts of the accused, but the accused did not keep up to his promises. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard Sri.Sumodh Madhavan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.11.2023. The investigation in the case is practically complete and the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. He is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner hails from West Bengal. The petitioner is involved in a similar offence in a crime registered in the State of Maharashtra. There is every likelihood of the petitioner fleeing from justice, if he is enlarged on bail. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the investigation in the case is practically complete.

On a cumulative appreciation of the facts and the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 30.11.2023 and that the investigation in the case is practically complete, I am of the view that the petitioner's continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, but subject to stringent conditions.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday and Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer;

(vi) The petitioner shall reside within the territorial jurisdiction of Thrissur District until the investigation is complete.

(vii) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below;

(ix) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal  v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].