IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

BLAPL NO. 5963 Of 2017

An focus underneath territory 439 of a Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in tie with CID C.B. Cyber Crime P.S.Case No.12 of 2016 analogous to C.T. Case No.3811 of 2017 tentative in a Court of schooled S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.

Obinna Nicodemus Enweka @ Obina Icodemus …….. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Orissa                     ……..                             Opp.
For Petitioner                    Mr. Goutam Mishra   For Opp. party                   –
Mr. JanmejayaKatikia              Addl. Govt. Advocate

P R E S E N T:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

Date of Argument: 14.11.2017
Date of order: 22.11.2017

K. SAHOO, J.
A twenty one year immature child has knocked during a portals of this Court for bail. He is endangered in cybercrime. The demeanour in that a crime has been committed shows a diabolical master mindedness, cold thinking, tricks adopted, organised bid and timely execution of devise of a offenders. The comprehension and modernized form of believe on cyber seems to have been utilized in a wrong way. Sitting somewhere distant from a plant and though carrying any approach earthy entrance to her, a cybercriminal has caused unthinkable mistreat to her with touches of his fingers on a mechanism and stolen some-more than what an typical rapist could have finished with gun. The plant of a orderly crime appears to be an trusting lady fell into a trap of immorality design. With a enticement of removing unfamiliar gifts, she acted like a witless fondle in a hands of a criminals compartment she realised one day that she had been cheated on a mistaken impression.

The law was set into suit with a display of a initial information news by Sukanti Mohanty during Cyber Crime Police Station of C.I.D., C.B., Cuttack on a indictment that she had turn a plant of orderly cybercrime and had paid a sum of Rs.17,03,390/- to opposite persons by their bank accounts that were supposing to her by e-mail/sms /whatsapp. She purported opposite one chairman identifying himself as Frank Young on facebook had sent her a friend’s ask that she accepted. The indicted sensitive a adviser that he had sent her some gifts that were hold adult in Delhi from where she should collect a gifts. The adviser was asked by a series of calls and e-mails for income on several pretexts i.e. remittance, unfamiliar exchange, send etc. The phone calls and sms were perceived from opposite numbers and a people who identified themselves as Frank, Marc, confidence personnel, R.B.I. officials and Airport officials etc. suggested and assured a adviser to deposition income in opposite bank accounts supposing by them. The income was paid in 4 opposite bank accounts of 4 opposite persons by a adviser totalling to Rs.17,03,390/-.

On such initial information report, C.I.D.C.B. Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.12 antiquated 26.08.2016 was purebred under sections 419/420/468/471 of a Indian Penal Code and section 66-C/66-D of a Information Technology Act, 2000.

During march of investigation, a adviser and other witnesses were examined. The papers relating to deposition of money, accounts matter of a informant’s bank comment as good as some other applicable papers were seized. Requisitions under section 91 of Cr.P.C. were sent to a endangered banks to yield A/c opening forms sum along with adult to date comment matter and other required information for marker of a comment holders. Immediate correspondence were also done with endangered mobile use providers to discern a subscriber information as good as call sum to discern a temperament and plcae of a dungeon phone numbers that were used in creation hit with a informant. While conducting questioning during New Delhi, it was guarded that vast sum of income was deposited in a bank accounts of fraudsters and a same was immediately being eliminated to many other bank accounts in smaller amounts by internet banking and shortly after that a smaller amounts were cold immediately by ATMs in no time withdrawal really small or no change in a customer accounts. The endangered bend managers were requested to withdraw solidify a customer accounts. On 08.10.2016, a Inspector of Cyber Crime, Goa intimated a questioning officer by e-mail that dual Nigerian nationals i.e. a postulant and another have been arrested on 03.10.2016 by Goa military and during interrogation, it was guarded that they are endangered in a crime in Orissa by defrauding a adviser by regulating dual mobile numbers. During corroboration of a mobile numbers and call annals perceived from a mobile use providers, it seemed that a dual mobile numbers are common in Odisha Cyber Crime box and Goa Cyber Crime case. The questioning officer perceived CDR and CAF in honour of some of a mobile numbers and analyzed them. From a CDR of a mobile phones, it became clear that a fraudster had prompted a adviser by creation write call and sms and a dual mobile numbers that were used in dual IMEIs were seized by a Cybercrime officials of Delhi and Goa. It was guarded during march of review that a postulant and another co-accused had turn friends with a adviser by e-mail/sms/whatsapp. Finding sufficient prima facie justification opposite a petitioner, assign piece was submitted on 27.02.2017 opposite a postulant and another co-accused under sections 419/420/468/471 of a Indian Penal Code and sections 66-C/66-D of a Information Technology Act gripping a serve review open under section 173(8)of Cr.P.C.

The postulant changed an focus for bail before a schooled Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Bail Application No.201/904 of 2017 that was deserted vide sequence antiquated 02.08.2017.

Mr. Gautam Mishra, schooled warn appearing for a postulant contended that a postulant has been unnecessarily victimized and he is in no approach endangered in a purported elect of a offences and he has already remained in control for a estimable duration and has undergone extensive hardship and mental anguish and assign piece has already been submitted. It is serve settled by a schooled warn for a postulant that a postulant has been postulated bail in a Goa box by a J.M.F.C., Mapusa, Goa and he has filed a bail sequence copy. He serve submitted that there is no possibility of tampering with a justification and therefore, a bail focus might be agreeably considered.

Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, schooled Additional Government Advocate on a other palm contended that there is not usually sufficient justification opposite a postulant relating to his impasse in a crime though also a serve review of a box is underneath swell and once a postulant is expelled on bail, there is odds of tampering with a evidence. It is serve contended that a postulant is endangered in committing identical offences in other States also and therefore, a bail focus should be rejected. Learned warn filed a box annals as good as some critical papers in a hermetic envelope.

Adverting to a contentions lifted by a schooled counsels for a particular parties and after going by a box records, it appears that there are sufficient prima facie evidence to uncover that due to provocation of a petitioner, a adviser deposited a sum of Rs.17,03,390/- in 4 accounts, 3 belonged to S.B.I. and one belonged to Central Bank of India. From a pronounced accounts, a postulant had eliminated income by online comment send to customer accounts and a indicted persons have cold income by ATM withdrawal a really immaterial volume in a account. The limit withdrawal have been effected regulating ATM cards and a Branch Managers of a endangered banks such as State Bank of Travancore, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, Union Bank and State Bank of Hyderabad etc. settled that a comment holders never revisit a bend and have cold income usually by ATM. It is clear that a adviser has deposited income in 4 accounts of opposite persons that are feign due to provocation by a postulant by online send from her accounts and shortly after her deposit, a income was eliminated by internet banking in smaller amounts to several customer accounts that are in opposite banks in New Delhi. It serve appears that a postulant visited India in a feign Visa on health ground.

Considering a inlet and sobriety of a accusation, a inlet of ancillary evidence, a demeanour in that the informant has been cheated with a outrageous amount, a astringency of punishment in box of conviction, a reasonable confinement of tampering with a justification quite when a serve review is underneath swell and a rapist inclination of a petitioner, we am not prone to accept a request for bail of a petitioner.

Accordingly, a BLAPL focus stands rejected.

S.K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack