Suman Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.T., Chandigarh
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
CRM (M) 14487/2020
Before Justice Sanjay Kumar
Decided On October 15, 2020
Relevancy of the case: Bail application for defrauding the complainant impersonating as authorised personnel of HDFC Life Insurance Company
Statutes and Provisions Involved
- The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66)
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120B, 419, 420, 439, 468, 471)
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 311, 320, 439, 482)
Relevant Facts of the Case
- The petitioner, along with others, defrauded the complainant by asking him to transfer money for the renewal of his lapsed HDFC life insurance policy.
- There was a comprise between the petitioners and the complainant. The amount taken fraudulently from the complainant was duly returned.
- Fake call centres were set up, where people claimed themselves to be authorized personnel of HDFC life insurance company to extract money from innocent people. The people under whose name the bank accounts were opened were also arrested.
- The details of 100 bank accounts, ATM cards, cheque books, mobile phones, and SIM cards were recovered from the residence of the petitioner.
- The present bail petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a grant of regular bail.
Prominent Arguments by the Advocates
- The petitioner’s counsel, supporting his argument with various case laws, submitted that even if the alleged offence is grave and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused, the pending cases should not be factors by themselves for refusal of bail and a balanced approach must be adopted to grant bail rather than keeping individuals under detention for an indefinite period.
- Application allowed.
- Regular bail granted.
This case summary has been prepared by Nandini Gadgil, an undergraduate student at DES Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2021.