New Delhi | A Delhi court has denied bail to an 18-year-old NEET aspirant who was allegedly active in large-scale organised cyber fraud, saying his role is not simply "peripheral" in light of the recovery of substantial proof against him.
Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Kumar Gautam rejected the bail plea of teenager Abuzar Gaffari, who has been accused of committing offences under Sections 318(4) (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 112(3) (abetment of offence), 317(2) (receiving stolen property, 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 49 (abetment of suicide), and 3(5) (common intention) of the BNS, along with Section 66(D) (cyber cheating by personation) of the Information Technology Act.
"This court is of the view that the role attributed to the applicant is not peripheral. Economic offences involving organised cyber fraud have serious ramifications on society and financial systems, and are required to be dealt with strictly," the court said in its order dated April 6.
"In view of the nature of allegations, the possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant," the court added, as it noted that involvement of other persons in the larger conspiracy is yet to be ascertained in the ongoing investigation.
The court took note of the material placed on record as it revealed the recovery of approximately 38 ATM cards, multiple cheque books, passbooks, SIM cards, mobile phones and a laptop.
"The applicant (Gaffari) was actively involved in arranging bank accounts and routing funds through multiple accounts and converting the same into cryptocurrency, which prima facie reflects a well-organised and systematic activity," the court said.
The prosecution had also highlighted that the 30-40 bank accounts associated with the accused were linked with multiple complaints on the National Cyber Crime Portal, including for high-value fraud cases.
It also found that the CCTV footage of the accused withdrawing and depositing cash through various ATMs and the magnitude of transactions, including deposits, running into approximately Rs 44 lakh, further strengthened the prosecution case opposing the plea.
Earlier, the defence counsel argued that the alleged recovery of evidence has been falsely planted, and no independent recovery had been effected by the police. He also cited the accused's young age to argue continued incarceration would adversely affect his education and future prospects.
The court responded that such matters require evidence and cannot be adjudicated at this stage of bail.
