The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently granted bail to an individual accused of defrauding a Ramakrishna Mission Ashram official of ₹2.5 crore through a cyber fraud scheme. The bench, led by Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, considered various factors before arriving at its decision.
According to the prosecution, the incident began on March 17, 2025, when the Secretary and Manager of the Ramakrishna Mission Ashram in Gwalior received a WhatsApp call from someone posing as a police officer from Nashik. The caller informed the official that an FIR had been filed against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and presented details of a bank account opened in his name, showing transactions amounting to ₹20 crore. Believing the caller's claims, the Ashram official was persuaded to provide confidential financial information. Subsequently, between March 17 and April 11, he transferred ₹2.52 crore to various accounts as directed by the caller. It was only after the funds were not refunded and the caller became untraceable that the Ashram official realized he had been deceived and filed a complaint.
The applicant's counsel contended that the individual was implicated based solely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused, Tushar Gome, who allegedly transferred money to the applicant under the instructions of Udayraj, the applicant's brother and the primary accused. The defense argued that the applicant's involvement was minimal and that he had been in custody since April 19. Given the likelihood of a prolonged trial, the counsel emphasized that extended pre-trial detention would be detrimental to the applicant's liberty.
On the other hand, the State's counsel opposed the bail application, highlighting the serious nature of the offense, the substantial amount of money involved, and the organized manner in which the cyber fraud was executed. The prosecution maintained that the applicant's actions warranted stringent legal action.
After evaluating the overall facts and circumstances of the case, Justice Phadke noted that the trial was not expected to conclude in the near future and that prolonged pre-trial detention was contrary to the principle of liberty. Consequently, the court decided to grant bail to the applicant, subject to certain conditions.
This decision underscores the judiciary's approach to balancing the seriousness of offenses with the fundamental rights of individuals, ensuring that justice is served while upholding constitutional liberties.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.