Obinna Nicodemus Enweka v. State of Orissa
In the High Court of Orissa
BLAPL 5963/2017
Before Justice S K Sahoo
Decided on November 22, 2017

Relevancy of the case: Bail application in a case involving custom clearance and foreign exchange fraud

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66C, 66D)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 419, 420, 468, 471)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 91, 173(8), 439)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petitioners induced the informant into giving them money by promising to give her foreign gifts. The informant was asked through several calls and e-mails for money on various pretexts i.e., remittance, foreign exchange, transfer, etc.
• The informant deposited money in four accounts of different persons which were provided to her through e-mail/SMS/WhatsApp and soon after her deposit, the money was transferred through internet banking in smaller amounts to several beneficiary accounts which were in different banks in New Delhi. The smaller amounts were then withdrawn immediately through ATMs leaving very little or no balance in the beneficiary accounts.
• The accused deceived the informant by saying that they had sent her the gifts which were held up in Delhi from where she should collect them.
• The petitioner and others were arrested and during interrogation, it was ascertained that they were involved in a crime in Orissa and Goa by defrauding the informant by using two mobile numbers. It further appears that the petitioner visited India with a fake Visa on health grounds.
• Finding sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioner, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and another co-accused.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner has been unnecessarily victimized and was in no way involved in the alleged commission of offences. He has already remained in custody for a substantial period. There is no chance of tampering with the evidence and therefore, the bail application should be considered.
• The respondent’s counsel contended that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner relating to his involvement in the crime. Also, the fact that the investigation of the case is in progress, there is a likelihood of tampering with the evidence. He further contended that the petitioner has committed similar offences in other states and therefore, the bail application should be rejected.

Opinion of the Bench

• There was sufficient prima facie evidence to prove that the acts were committed by the accused.

Final Decision

• Application rejected.

This case summary has been prepared by Ria Verma, an undergraduate student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2021.