Allowed

Vivian Dsouza v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Oct 2021ABA/382/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application. The applicant alleged misuse of personal banking details for fraudulent online purchases. The court held custodial interrogation unwarranted given the seized material and lack of antecedents, granting bail subject to a personal bond, ensuring witness interference is avoided, and fixed dates for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Bail granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties, ensuring no interference with witnesses, and attending the Investigating Officer on fixed dates.

Vivian Dsouza Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed IRESHSIDDHARAM by IRESHSIDDHARAMMASHAL MASHAL Date: 2021.10.11 14:16:27 +0530

¶2

9.382.21 ABA.doc

¶3

ISM

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 382 OF 2021

¶7

VIVIAN D’SOUZA ….APPLICANT

¶8

V/s.

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …..RESPONDENT

¶10

Ms. Sunita S. Banis advocate for the Applicant Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: 8^th OCTOBER, 2021.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1] Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in C.R. No. 25/2020 registered with Bangur Nagar Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 379, 381, 408, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 66, 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) and 66(E) of the Information Technology Act.

¶14

2] Applicant while working as an employee of Tech Mahindra

¶15

Company misused personal banking details viz. credit card, CVV No.

¶16

1/3

¶17

9.382.21 ABA.doc

¶18

etc and used the same for carrying out purchase online of the account of such customers without their permission. As such, offence in question.

¶19

3] Entire material used in the commission of crime viz. phone of the applicant, material purchased, e-mail, account details are already seized from the applicant. No criminal antecedents are reported against the applicant.

¶20

4] In the aforesaid backdrop, in my opinion, considering the nature of investigation carried out till date, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not warranted or justifed. Hence, application is allowed on following terms:

¶21

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant in C.R. No. 25/2020 registered with Bangur Nagar Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 379, 381, 408, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 66, 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) and 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, he be released on bail on

¶22

2/3

¶23

9.382.21 ABA.doc

¶24

furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶25

(ii) Applicant shall neither infuence prosecution witnesses in any manner nor tamper with evidence.

¶26

(iii) Applicant to attend Investigating Offcer on 12/10/2021, 14/10/2021 and 18/10/2021 between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon and thereafter as and when directed.

¶27

5] Application stands disposed of.

¶28

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

¶29

3/3

Vivian Dsouza v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivian Dsouza v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Ganpat Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Jay Bhagwan Dulgaj Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nagma Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Ramji Bhadricha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Siraj @ Karimuddin Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahendra Bhopalsingh Mehta Vs Sheetal Mahendra Mehta and Ors.