Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Subhojit Kumar Roy (Accused No.1), sought regular bail before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court after being arrested in Crime No.14 of 2022 registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thoothukudi.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner and other accused impersonated officials of Bharat Petroleum by creating a fake website and publishing dealership advertisements through Google and social media platforms. Based on these fraudulent representations, money was collected from applicants seeking dealership opportunities. It was alleged that the accused dishonestly induced the complainant to deposit amounts aggregating to Rs.1,29,500, which were thereafter misappropriated.

The petitioner had been in judicial custody since 07 August 2022 and filed the present petition seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC.
  2. Whether the material available prima facie indicated the petitioner's involvement in the alleged cyber fraud.
  3. Whether bail should be granted when investigation was still in progress and there existed an apprehension of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence.

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner submitted that:

  • He was merely employed as a web designer in a software company.
  • He had no involvement in the alleged cheating or financial transactions.
  • The mobile number appearing on the website belonged to him only because of his professional assignment.
  • No transaction exceeding Rs.1,50,000 had taken place in his account.
  • He had received only nominal charges for web designing work, allegedly below Rs.10,000.
  • He had informed the co-accused regarding discrepancies in the GST number and bank account details of the purported petroleum company.
  • His sister, a dentist, was willing to stand as surety.
  • Without admitting guilt, he expressed readiness to deposit 50% of the amount allegedly credited to his account and raised no objection to its withdrawal by the complainant.
  • Since he had remained in custody for more than one month, he prayed for grant of bail.

Respondent's Arguments

The prosecution opposed the bail application and contended that:

  • The petitioner actively participated in creating the fraudulent Bharat Petroleum website.
  • The accused circulated fake dealership advertisements through social media platforms.
  • Approximately Rs.60 lakh had been credited into the account of another accused.
  • Even after receiving summons, the petitioner allegedly created another fraudulent website under the caption "Fuel.in" after abandoning earlier websites.
  • The petitioner was a permanent resident of West Bengal, creating a genuine possibility of absconding.
  • Investigation was still at a crucial stage.
  • Several email communications had been deleted, indicating possible destruction of electronic evidence.
  • The petitioner's mobile number had been used in commission of the alleged offence.

Court Order / Findings

After examining the rival submissions and available materials, the High Court observed that:

  • It was undisputed that the petitioner had created the website forming the basis of the alleged fraud.
  • His mobile number had been used in connection with the commission of the offence.
  • A substantial portion of the email communications had been deleted.
  • Investigation had not yet concluded.
  • The petitioner was residing outside the State, increasing the likelihood of absconding.
  • Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the pending investigation, and the specific role attributed to the petitioner, no case for grant of bail was made out.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the bail petition and declined to release the petitioner at that stage.

Important Clarification

The judgment reiterates the settled principle that:

  • Bail under Section 439 CrPC is discretionary and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
  • In cyber fraud matters involving electronic evidence, courts may refuse bail where the investigation is incomplete, electronic records appear to have been deleted, or there exists a reasonable apprehension that the accused may abscond or interfere with the investigation.
  • The mere plea of being a technical service provider or web designer does not automatically entitle an accused to bail when prima facie materials indicate participation in the alleged offence.

Sections Involved

  • Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Special Powers of High Court regarding Bail.
  • Relevant provisions relating to Cyber Crime, Cheating, Impersonation and Electronic Fraud under the applicable penal laws (as involved in investigation).

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783919265_2116compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.