According to the police, a financial consultant, Dinesh Ramanlal Panchal, was added to a WhatsApp group titled “J103 Premier Tutorials”, where tips and tricks for making profits through investments in the share market were shared. On seeing that several members of the group were making huge profits, Panchal invested a total of ₹74.35 lakh through a mobile application in August, as directed by the frauds

MUMBAI: A sessions court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a 22-year-old accused in a cyber investment fraud case, holding that prima facie material showed his bank account formed part of the “first layer” of the money trail and that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the wider conspiracy.According to the police, a financial consultant, Dinesh Ramanlal Panchal, was added to a WhatsApp group titled “J103 Premier Tutorials”, where tips and tricks for making profits through investments in the share market were shared. On seeing that several members of the group were making huge profits, Panchal invested a total of ₹74.35 lakh through a mobile application in August, as directed by the frauds. The app reflected huge profits, but he was unable to withdraw any amount. He was asked to pay a service charge for unlocking the withdrawal of his earnings, after which he realised he had been duped and approached the East Zone Cyber Police.

During their investigation, the police found that ₹7.25 lakh from the complainant’s transfers was credited to accounts linked to one Kaif Aamjad Khan, who was subsequently arrested. Khan applied for an anticipatory bail, which was being heard last week. Opposing the bail plea, pointed out that the applicant’s bank account had 36 complaints registered against it on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCCRP), involving deposits totalling ₹1.92 crore. The prosecution contended that the account showed a direct nexus with the fraudsters.

The defence argued that the applicant was falsely implicated merely because one of the accounts mentioned in the FIR belonged to him, noting that his name did not figure in the complaint. The counsel submitted that the applicant had no connection with the WhatsApp group or the accused persons, had alerted the bank after noticing suspicious transactions, and that no recovery or discovery was pending, as digital and banking trails had already been secured by the investigators.

Additional sessions judge VP Desai, however, observed that an FIR “is not an encyclopedia of the crime” and noted that the investigation revealed multiple deposits into the applicant’s account over a short period.

Referring to the 36 NCCRP complaints and deposits exceeding ₹1.92 crore, the court held that the applicant had provided account details to the fraudsters, without which the fraud could not have been executed.

“Considering the material collected by the investigating officer, it cannot be said that the applicant is falsely implicated in the case,” the court said, adding that granting anticipatory bail would likely impede effective investigation.

Citing the rising incidence of cybercrime and substantial losses suffered by victims, the court ruled that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain who contacted the applicant, to whom and why account details were provided, and whether any benefit was derived. Granting anticipatory bail, the court said, would impede effective investigation.