AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Cyber Crime (CID) PS Case No.2 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.72 of 2025 pending in the file of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.318(4)/319(2)/336(2)/336(3)/338/ 340(2)/61(2)/3(5) of BNS r/w Sections 66(C)/66(D) of IT Act.
Facts in precise are that on 2nd October, 2024, one lady by introducing herself as a Staff-Cum-Assistant of “Geojit Financial Services Ltd” contacted the informant Dr. Saswata Mohanty and added her (informant) to a Whatsapp Group namely named “F2-Geojit Financial Services Ltd”, which is stated to be engaged in share trading at discounted rates with promise of daily dividends with high profit margins and, accordingly, impression was given to the informant that the said Whatsapp Group was engaged in block trading, IPO investments & other profitable financial features. Based on these representations, the informant made the first investment of INR 50,000/- to the Bank account details provided by an alleged customer service representative of “Geojit Financial Services Ltd.” and the informant further invested into various accounts described as SEBI registered firms and the informant was shown with fabricated account statements indicating significant profits, but whenever withdrawal was attempted by the informant, it was denied with various ground/ justifications by demanding further investments and in the process, the informant was, accordingly, defrauded with a sum of Rs.6,04,53,000/-(Rupees Six Crores Four Lakhs Fifty-three Thousand) which was not only the investment solely of the informant, but also the investment of her relatives.
On the FIR of Dr. Mohanty, CID Cyber Crime PS Case No.2 of 2025 was registered, but in the course of investigation, finding the complicity of the petitioner and other persons, they were taken into custody. When the bail application of the aforesaid petitioner was being come to be rejected by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, he is before this Court in this bail application.
Heard, Mr. Banshidhar Baug, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Ms. Rashmi Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Gorekhanath Das, learned counsel enters appearance for the informant in the Court today by filing Vakalatnama, which is taken on record, and Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter, and perused the record.
Mr. Baug, learned Senior Counsel has undoubtedly sought for bail to the petitioner on ground of parity, but the present petitioner does not appear to be similarly situated with co-accused granted bail and there appears allegation against the petitioner for receiving Rs.1,11,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Eleven Lakhs) in his account from the account of the informant, since it is ascertained in the course of investigation that A/C No.121163300001806 belongs to “Bharani Enterprises”, whose Proprietor is the petitioner and the registered mobile number linked to this account stands in the name of the petitioner. Besides, the investigating officer has ascertained from the Joint Cyber Crime Co-ordination Team Management Information System (JMIS Portal) that there are seven (7) complaints registered against the bank account of the petitioner in all over India.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence as alleged vis-a-vis the accusations sought to be brought against the petitioner and regard being had to the materials placed on record together with seven (7) number of complaints received against the account number of the petitioner and the account number of the petitioner being credited with such a huge amount of Rs.1,11,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Eleven Lakhs) from the account of the informant, but subsequently, the same being diverted and the informant having been cheated for a sum of Rs.6,04,53,000/-(Rupees Six Crores Four Lakhs Fifty-three Thousand), this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned Court in seisin over the matter.