Ravindra Maithani, J
1. Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 02 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, 120B IPC and Section 66C, 66D of the Informant
Technology Act, 2000, Cyber Crime Thana Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the applicant made a website resembling to the website of the KIA and cheated the informant in the name of giving him
dealership of KIA.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has not committed any offence; nothing was recovered from him; no amount was
deposited in his account.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that it is the applicant who has taken the domain name in the name of Aman Raj. He has logged in, in the
official laptop of the arresting officer from which invoices and other documents were taken. It is argued that, in fact, these acts were done by the
applicant in the name of Aman Raj.
6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this
order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.
7. These are faceless crimes. It is a case of cheating of more than Rs.30 Lakh. A website was forged. There is a recovery memo which records that
it is the applicant who logged in, in the laptop and by using the password which was given in the recovery memo all the documents related to the
offence were detected, of which the print out was taken by the applicant.
8. Whatever material the prosecution has placed up till now reveals that it is the applicant who is the mastermind of the offence.
9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail
application deserves to be rejected.
10. The bail application is rejected.
