Subhojit Kumar Roy vs. The Inspector Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, Subhojit Kumar Roy, sought bail in connection with Crime No. 14/2022 registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thoothukudi. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others impersonated Bharat Petroleum authorities, created a fraudulent website, invited dealership applications, and collected Rs. 1,29,500/- from the defacto complainant, misappropriating the funds. The petitioner claimed to be a web designer working for Techno Exponent and asserted he was also a victim. He stated his mobile number was used on the website and that his transactions did not exceed Rs. 1,50,000/-. He offered to deposit 50% of the alleged amount and had no objection to the defacto complainant withdrawing the funds. The prosecution countered that Rs. 60,00,000/- was credited to another accused's account, and the petitioner created a new website after abandoning previous ones. The petitioner had been in custody for 32 days.

Held

The Court dismissed the bail petition. The Court considered the nature of the offence and the overt acts attributed to the petitioner. While the petitioner claimed to be a web designer and a victim, the Court noted that his mobile number was used for the commission of the offence and that he had admittedly created the website. The prosecution's contention that the petitioner was a resident of West Bengal and thus a flight risk was also a significant factor. The Court found that the investigation was not yet complete. Based on the gravity of the alleged offence and the evidence presented, the Court was not inclined to grant bail at that stage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail given the allegations of impersonation, creation of a fraudulent website, and misappropriation of funds under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was merely a web designer and a victim, not involved in the fraudulent collection of funds. He claimed his role was limited to providing computer services for less than Rs. 10,000/-. He highlighted that he had informed another accused about discrepancies in the GST number and account number, suggesting his lack of intent to defraud. He also pointed out that his sister was ready to stand as surety and that he was prepared to deposit a portion of the collected amount. Prosecution's Arguments: The prosecution contended that the petitioner was actively involved in creating the fraudulent website and hosting advertisements for dealerships. They stated that a substantial amount was credited to another accused's account and that the petitioner created new websites even after the initial ones were abandoned. The prosecution also raised concerns about the petitioner being a resident of West Bengal and the possibility of him absconding.