Rs. 14L Cybercrime by Forged Documents and Impersonation as Income Tax Dept & Customs Dept: Gujarat HC Refuses to Grant Bail considering Grievance of Offence

The application is filed Veronica Andrew Annika Lethabo for regular bail in connection with FIR registered with Cyber Crime Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( “IPC”) and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act.

It was submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. The applicant is a lady accused, and the offence is triable by the Magistrate. The applicant is ready and willing to furnish solvent surety, and undertakes that until the trial is over, she will not leave the country. It is further argued that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and submitted that the applicant is very much involved in the offence. It is submitted that this is a successive bail application and the earlier application was withdrawn by the applicant. The present application has been filed without there being any change in circumstances.

It is further submitted that the applicant is trying to evade the trial and is not cooperating in the proceedings. The applicant has committed fraud under the pretext of a gift. The applicant sent messages in the name of the Income Tax Department and Customs Department to get a parcel worth Rs. 14,09,000/- released into her account, thereby committing forgery by using forged documents.

She is also in possession of two different fake passports from two different countries, one from Nigeria and another from South Africa, and in this regard, another case has already been registered against the applicant. If the present applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility that she may tamper with the evidence or abscond from the trial. Therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

It was found that the earlier bail application, after being argued at length, was withdrawn by the applicant with liberty reserved to file a fresh. It appears that there are a total of 14 witnesses in the present case, out of which five witnesses have been examined, and one witness has been dropped by the APP. There is no possibility of delay in the trial. However, without there being any change in circumstances, the present successive bail application has been filed, and the advocate for the applicant has failed to explain any change in circumstances.

The accused, using her financial means through M. No. 6909639361 and M. No. 6909220245, repeatedly sent messages to the complainant, gained the complainant’s trust, and with the intention to deceive, prepared false documents of government securities as bail sureties from two different departments of the Government of India.

The accused also created fake accounts on social media applications such as WhatsApp and Instagram using false identities, and by giving false promises of valuable gifts, made the complainant believe that a gift had arrived and that, to release it, the complainant would need to pay taxes to the Income Tax Department and charges to the Customs Department.

The accused fraudulently and dishonestly obtained a total amount of Rs. 14,09,000/- from the complainant’s bank account through various transactions, thereby committing a serious offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

Step by Step Guidance for Tax Audit & E-filing, Click Here

A single bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar viewed that once, the matter was withdrawn or dismissed on merit and there is no change in circumstances, present successive application by the appellant on the same ground is not permissible only on a specific ground that a considerable time have been passed or charge sheet has been filed.

The court found that the applicant had failed to make out any case. It is required to be mentioned that the appellant may file successive bail applications, but it does not mean that the Court is taken for granted as and when bail application is preferred, it should be allowed. Further, there is no change in circumstances.

The onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected. After such consideration, if the Court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted, then the Court will have to give specific reasons why instead of such earlier rejection, subsequent application for bail should be granted.

Considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, the Court held that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed, and the trial court is directed to expedite the trial on a day-to-day basis, and in the event the applicant fails to engage an advocate, the trial court shall provide legal aid to the applicant through the office of the Chief Defence Counsel.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates