Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail to Lottery Scam Accused [Read Order]
The court held that the anticipatory bail application should be rejected, finding no grounds to release the applicant on bail at this stage.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Aazad Hussain, who is facing allegations of participating in an interstate cyber fraud racket.
The applicant apprehended his arrest in connection with Crime No. 55/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act.
The court held that the anticipatory bail application should be rejected, finding no grounds to release the applicant on bail at this stage.
The core issue was whether the applicant, apprehending arrest in a cyber fraud conspiracy, should be granted pre-arrest bail, considering he was allegedly absconding and the charge sheet had been filed in his absence.
The Applicant, represented by Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, contended that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He argued that a co-accused, Manoj Yadav, had already been granted bail by the same court, and other co-accused persons had also been released by the trial court. He further submitted that witness statements did not implicate him.
The Respondent, the State of Chhattisgarh, opposed the bail. It argued that the applicant did not cooperate with the investigation and was absconding, leading to the charge sheet being filed in his absence. The State further submitted that Rs. 5000 was transferred from the applicant's account and that a co-accused, Rambabu Yadav, had provided information about the applicant's active involvement in the cyber crime.
Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here
Justice DeepakKumar Tiwari ruled against the Applicant, finding the arguments for bail unconvincing.
The court based its decision on the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant. It considered the prosecution's case that the applicant was part of a conspiracy to commit a cyber crime and had allegedly received a portion of the fraudulently obtained funds.
The bench held that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the allegations, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
