Jyothi Kakkar v. State of Karnataka
In the High Court of Karnataka
Cr.P. 8457/ 2019
Before Justice K.S. Mudagal
Decided on March 19, 2020

Relevancy of the case: Anticipatory bail application in a case involving online fraud by a travel agency

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66C, 66D)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 419, 420)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petitioners are directors of a travel agency named Binz Holidays Private Limited.
• The complainant paid over ₹4.31 lakhs for one of their travel plans, which included a visit to the UK and other Schengen countries. The petitioners were not able to organise the tour as per the schedule. Hence, the complainant requested a refund of the amount paid.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that they had processed the complainant’s travel programme per the schedule. They received a visa for the UK; however, they could not get the Schengen visa before the scheduled departure time. They have already refunded the amount collected from the complainant.
• The respondent’s counsel opposed the petition for granting the bail. She submitted that the petitioners are residents of Delhi. If the court gives them anticipatory bail, they may not cooperate with the investigation or appear before the court.

Opinion of the Bench

• All the transactions between the parties are in electronic form. There is no chance of petitioners meddling with evidence.

Final Decision

• The court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners.