Abhishek Kumar Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Abhishek Kumar Singh, sought regular bail in FIR No.21 dated 01.08.2024, registered under Sections 318, 319, 61 of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 66-C, 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, at Police Station Punjab State Cyber Crime. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by Harish Gupta, who alleged that his employee transferred Rs.49,60,401/- to a bank account belonging to Babu Sheikh after receiving a fraudulent WhatsApp message impersonating the complainant. The petitioner was implicated as Rs.2,50,000/- of the defrauded amount was allegedly transferred to an account belonging to him. The petitioner was arrested on 02.08.2024. His previous bail applications were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge and twice by the High Court.

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the allegations against the petitioner pertained to a transaction of Rs.2,50,000/- in his account. It was acknowledged that the complainant was defrauded of Rs.49,60,401/-, which was subsequently transferred to various accounts and then handed over to one OP Berry, who is not an accused in the present case. The Court observed that 7 out of 23 prosecution witnesses had been examined and that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. The Court opined that the veracity of the allegations would be assessed at the conclusion of the trial. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, including the significant time the trial would take and the petitioner's lack of criminal history, the Court found a case for granting bail. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. It was also directed that if bail bonds were not furnished within seven days, the petitioner's custody period after one week would not be counted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail given his alleged involvement in receiving Rs.2,50,000/- of the defrauded amount, and his claim of no knowledge of the transaction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated, is not named in the FIR, and had no knowledge of the transaction in his account. He argues that the investigation has not been free and fair, and the entire defrauded amount has not been investigated. He has been in custody for over 1.5 years and has no prior criminal antecedents. Respondent's (State of Punjab) arguments: The State opposes bail, stating that Rs.2,50,000/- of the defrauded amount is attributable to the petitioner as it was received in his account. The State further submits that after withdrawal, this amount was handed over to one OP Berry and others, who are not accused in the FIR. Out of 23 prosecution witnesses, 7 have been examined, and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.