Bail denied to online fraudsters

Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Oct 25: Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Jammu Amarjeet Singh Langeh has rejected the bail applications of two online fraudsters namely Mohd Tahir Khan, son of Abdul Gani Khan of Safakadal Srinagar and Irshad Amed Nadaf, son of Gulzar Ahmed Nadaf of Srinagar.
After hearing APP Arvind Rathore for the Cyber Crime, the court observed, “the ongoing investigation gives a vivid account as to how petitioners devised dubious tactics to exploit and dupe complainant through an un-solicited phone call, in the first place, by impersonating himself as one from Dubai Embassy competent enough to provide him (complainant) a business visa for Dubai and thereafter dis-honestly making him to part with an amount of Rs 3,30,000”.
“Investigating agency has also been able to collect evidence, mostly electronic, depicting as to how amount was duped by petitioners in five transactions. There thus is a strong prima facie evidence available on record inculpating petitioners in commission of offences under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act”, the court said, adding “offence under Section 420 of IPC is serious and non-bailable in nature”.
“Since petitioners are alleged to have hatched conspiracy to dupe/cheat complainant, in these circumstances offence under Section 120-B of IPC is also treated in law as non-bailable. Interestingly also, a graver aspect has also come to surface during investigation indicating use of defrauded money in drug use by petitioners”, the CJM said, adding “material on record also suggests that both the petitioners are drug addicts and are also said to have undergone treatment in drug de-addiction and rehabilitation centre in Srinagar”.
“The modus operandi used by petitioners to target vulnerable section of society through un-solicited phone calls and by sweet offers has deeper resonance on public at large and release of petitioners on bail at this stage will thus have an adverse impact on faith of public in the majesty of law”, the court said.