The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.14283 of 2023 Karan Kumar Singh …. Petitioner Mr. M. Kanungo, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.R. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Mishra, A.S.C. Mr. S. Ray, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA O R D E R Date of hearing : 29.10.2024 / date of judgment : 04.11.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual Order No. 14. /Physical Mode). 2. This bail application under Section under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. arising out of C.T. Case No.07 of 2023 in connection with EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.21 of 2023 pending in the court of learned P.O., DC, OPID Act, Cuttack filed by the petitioner is taken up into consideration. 3. The petitioner is in jail custody since 07.07.2023 having been implicated with the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the I.P.C., 1860 read with Sections 65, 66-C and 66-D of the I.T. Act, 2000 for commission of online fraud gaining money wrongfully and illegally to the tune of Rs.15,09,21,146/- defrauding Page 1 of 11 The M/s. Iserveu Technology Private Limited Company at Bhubaneswar in the district of Khordha tampering with computer source documents for misappropriation of the aforesaid huge amounts of money dishonestly on the allegations alleged against him that, he (petitioner) is one of the Directors of the Company, i.e., M/s. Payone Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. at C-613, 3rd Floor, Sector-19, Noida Goutam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and the informant is the Chief Technology Officer of the company, i.e., M/s. Iserveu Technology Private Limited, Bhubaneswar. There were two Technology integration agreements between the above two Private Ltd. companies, i.e., M/s. Payone Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Iserveu Technology Private Limited on dated 27.04.2023 and 25.05.2023 respectively through online mode indicating the roles, responsibilities, liabilities and the rates of commissions to be received by the M/s. Payone Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of the amounts of day wise monetary transactions relating to collection, transfer and payments to different agencies/persons on online mode through the use of UPI and API(Unified Payments Interface & Application Programming Interface) for the commercial utilization of the same as an open source Application Programming Interface(API) on top of the Immediate Payment Services (IMPS) Page 2 of 11 using the nodal account and current Bank account of M/s. Iserveu Technology Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vide its Nodal Bank Account No.3218000105 in Fino Payments Bank, Navi Mumbai General Ledger (GL) and current Bank account at Head Office Branch of Fino Payments Bank, Navi Mumbai vide Account No.20333466249 for payin and payout. For which, The M/s. Iserveu Technology Private Limited company shared its API credentials, i.e., API Login Link, API user name/I.D./API password through e-mail to the petitioner on 05.05.2023 and 01.06.2023 respectively with a request not to share the password with anyone. Accordingly, after getting such password, the petitioner started monetary transactions/payments through online mode using the aforesaid two accounts of The M/s. Iserveu Technology Private Limited company for payin and payout, but surprisingly, it was detected by the M/s. Iserveu Technology Private Limited company that, during the period from 07.06.2023 to 19.06.2023, the petitioner has transferred (cashed out) Rs.15,09,21,146/- from the accounts of M/s. Iserveu Technology Private Limited, Bhubaneswar manipulating the dynamic QR Codes routed through the above accounts of M/s. Iserveu Technology Private Limited using payout mechanism to 125 un-connected Bank accounts, those had no business relevancy with Page 3 of 11 the M/s. Iserveu Technology Private Limited through 1601 numbers of illegal/unauthorized transactions. 4. After knowing about the same, the Chief Technology Officer of M/s. Iserveu Technology Private Limited, Bhubaneswar lodged F.I.R. on dated 29.06.2023 against the petitioner and its company, i.e., M/s. Payone Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. Company and others. 5. Basing upon such, F.I.R., EOW Odisha, Bhubaneswar Case No.21 dated 29.06.2023 was registered against the petitioner along with M/s. Payone Digital Service Ltd. Company and investigation was started by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, Bhubaneswar 6. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested by the Investigating Officer on dated 06.07.2023 from Noida and was produced before the nearest court on 07.07.2023, from where, he was brought on transit remand and then produced before the OPID Court, Cuttack after being booked with the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the I.P.C., 1860 and Sections 65, 66-C and 66-D of the I.T. Act, 2000 and accordingly, since 07.07.2023, he (petitioner) is in jail custody. 7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted for the Page 4 of 11 release of the petitioner on bail contending that, he (petitioner) is in jail custody for more than a year and in the meantime, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet on dated 31.10.2023 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the I.P.C., 1860 and Sections 65, 66-C and 66-D of the I.T. Act, 2000 against him(petitioner) and M/s. Payone Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. company represented through the petitioner as its Director keeping the investigation open under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. to find out money trial, to scrutinize all the bank accounts and the involvement of other accused persons of the Company/Directors and to gather more documentary/oral evidence against the accused persons in the case, for which, he (petitioner) should not be kept detain for an indefinite period, therefore, he(petitioner) is required to be released on bail, to which, the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State opposed contending that, when the investigation of the case has been kept open to find out money trail and involvement of other accused persons, then in these nature of Economic Offences, he(petitioner) should not be allowed to go on bail. 8. The learned counsel for the informant also vehemently opposed the bail of the petitioner contending that, when the petitioner has made huge amount of monetary scam, i.e., online fraud Page 5 of 11 tampering with the computer source documents breaching the trust and faith of the informant’s company and when the investigation of the case has been kept open for collection of other documentary evidence and to ascertain the involvement of other accused persons with the incident, then at this stage, the release of the petitioner shall be detrimental to the investigation as well as prosecution, for which, the bail application of the petitioner cannot be allowed as per law. 9. It is forthcoming from the charge-sheet that, after detection of the alleged fraudulent transaction, the informant’s company, i.e., M/s. Iserveu Technology Private Limited has recovered an amount of Rs.2,83,91,501/- blocking the virtual wallet by debiting such amount from the virtual payout wallet to its account and accordingly, after recovery of the said Rs.2,83,91,501/-, the alleged cheating amount of money is Rs.11,49,34,422/-, which still stands to recover. 10. The petitioner is in jail custody for more than one year and three months, i.e., since 07.07.2023 and during the staying of the petitioner inside the jail, charge-sheet of the case has been submitted on 31.10.2023 against the petitioner and the company, i.e., M/s. Payone Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. represented through the petitioner as Director thereof, in the court of P.O., DC, OPID Act, Cuttack keeping the investigation open. So, the presence of the petitioner in Page 6 of 11 custody before the Investigating Officer may not be necessary for further investigation of the case. All the allegations alleged against the petitioner as well as M/s. Payone Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. company and others are basically based on computer source documents, i.e., electronic records, to which, during investigation, the same might have been accessed by the Investigating Agency. Prosecution has not come forward with any case that, the further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for further investigation of the case. The petitioner is the Director of M/s. Payone Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. He(petitioner) along with the company, i.e., M/s. Payone Digital Services Pvt. Ltd., both have already been charge-sheeted. There is no material in the record to show that, the presence of the petitioner during the trial of the case cannot be secured or he will tamper with the prosecution evidence, in case of his release on bail. 11. Therefore, even though, the petitioner as well as the company, i.e., M/s. Payone Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. both have been charge- sheeted with the aforesaid economic offences of huge magnitude and even though, in case of proving of the alleged offences against the petitioner and others, the same may jeopardized the economy of the informant’s company as well as the country, still then, when the Page 7 of 11 presence of the petitioner remaining in custody may not be necessary for further investigation of the case and when the entire case against the petitioner is based upon computer source documents, i.e., electronic records and when during the staying of the petitioner inside the jail for a period of more than one year three months, the Investigating Agency might have accessed to the so-called relevant digital computer source documents (electronic/digital records) and when the trial of the case against the petitioner has not been commenced in spite of submission of charge-sheet since 31.10.2023 due to keeping up of the investigation open for further investigation and when as per charge-sheet, more than thirty numbers of witnesses may be examined on behalf of the prosecution during trial of the case and when there is no certainty, when the trial of the case shall be completed and when the petitioner has already been incarcerated for more than one year and three months and when the Investigating Agency has not come forward stating any requirement of further custodial interrogation of the petitioner and when there is no material to show that, the presence of the petitioner during trial of the case cannot be secured, in case of release on bail or he shall tamper with the prosecution evidence and when nothing appears from the record to show that, during the staying of the petitioner inside the jail, he Page 8 of 11 has avoided to cooperate with the investigation and when the main purpose/object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at the trial, then, at this juncture, by applying the principles of law relating to bail enunciated in the like nature of cases by the Apex Court reported in 2011(4) Crimes-323(S.C.) : Sanjay Chandra vrs. C.B.I. and 2024(4) Crimes-41(S.C.) : V. Senthil Balaji vrs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, it is felt proper to allow the petitioner to go on bail, pending trial of the case against him with stringent conditions looking to the interest of the informant, informant’s company, i.e., M/s. Iserveu Technology Private Limited, witnesses of the case and prosecution, because, keeping the investigation open only by the investigating agency (EOW) after submission of charge-sheet on 31.10.2023 cannot be taken as an instrument in the hands of EOW for detention of the petitioner inside the jail for an indefinite long period, when there is no possibility of completion of trial of the case against the petitioner within a reasonable time. 12. Therefore, the bail application filed by the petitioner is allowed. 13. He(petitioner) is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,00,000/-(rupees twenty-five lakhs) with two solvent sureties Page 9 of 11 each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court, i.e., P.O., DC, OPID Act, Cuttack on the following conditions, i.e.,:- (i) He(petitioner) shall cooperate with the further investigation of the case by remaining present in the place as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. (ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or any witnesses of the case in any manner or shall make any attempt to influence them in any manner so as to dissuading them from disclosing such facts before the Court or any other authority including the Investigating Agency. (iii) He shall remain present personally before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case and if he wants to remain absent, then, he shall take prior permission of the court for the same to be represented through his counsel. (iv) He shall surrender his passport, if any, (if not Page 10 of 11 already surrendered) before the PO, DC, OPID Act, Cuttack in C.T. No.07 of 2023 and in case, he is not a holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit for the same. If he has already surrendered his passport before the learned court, i.e., PO, DC, OPID Act, Cuttack, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit. (v) The liberty is given to the EOW authorities / prosecution to make an appropriate application for modification / recalling this bail order, if for any reason, the petitioner violates any of the above conditions imposed by this Court for his release on bail. 14. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is disposed of finally. 15. Issue certified copy of this order to the petitioner on proper application.
Legal Reasoning
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 4th of November, 2024/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 04-Nov-2024 15:45:44 ( A.C. Behera ) Judge Page 11 of 11