Ajay Ojha vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application of the applicant, Ajay Ojha. The decision was based on the applicant's alleged active role in the online fraud, which involved deceiving the complainant into depositing substantial amounts as GST on purported profits from an investment scheme. The Court noted that the complainant was induced to deposit GST on fictitious gains, and the amounts were channeled through various accounts, including one used by the applicant. The Court also considered the memorandum statement of a co-accused, Sumit Verma, which implicated the applicant in operating the fraudulent scheme. Crucially, the Court took into account the prior dismissal of the bail application of co-accused Sumit Verma by the same High Court, finding it a significant factor in denying bail to the present applicant. The Court concluded that given the applicant's active participation in the alleged gang and the gravity of the offense, he was not inclined to release him on bail.

Facts

The applicant, Ajay Ojha, is seeking bail in connection with a case involving online fraud. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, along with co-accused, defrauded the complainant, Akhileshkant Soni, of Rs. 7,64,179/-. The complainant was induced to invest in a trade with promises of high returns. He initially deposited Rs. 13,000/-, and after seeing a screenshot of purported profits, was asked to deposit GST on the gains. This pattern continued, with the complainant depositing GST on increasingly larger amounts shown as profits. Eventually, he was asked to deposit GST ranging from Rs. 7 to 8 lacs. Upon inquiry, it was discovered that no such company existed, and the complainant had been deceived. The GST amounts were deposited into various accounts, including that of Anita Ojha. During the investigation, Anita Ojha stated that her husband, the applicant, used her account. A co-accused, Sumit Verma, also named the applicant as involved in operating the online fraud. The bail application of co-accused Sumit Verma was previously dismissed by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Ajay Ojha, is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given his alleged active role in an online fraud scheme involving the fraudulent inducement of a complainant to deposit GST on non-existent profits, and the dismissal of a co-accused's bail application. Petitioner's Argument: The applicant is seeking bail. While the judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the applicant's counsel, the filing of a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. implies a plea for release based on the facts and circumstances, potentially arguing for his innocence or minimal involvement. Respondent's Argument: The State, through the Additional Advocate General and Dy. Advocate General, opposed the bail application. Their argument, as reflected in the court's reasoning, is based on the applicant's alleged active role in the online fraud, the substantial amount defrauded, the modus operandi involving fraudulent GST deposits, and the fact that a co-accused with a similar alleged role had their bail application dismissed.