RAHUL SREEKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applications filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail. The applicant in BA No.6850/2020 is the first accused while the applicant in BA No.6851/2020 is the 6th accused in Crime No.763/2018 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that while the applicants were working in OYO (Oravel Stays Pvt.Ltd.) in different capacities connected with business development during the year 2015 and 2016 for a period of five months, they had allegedly in furtherance of common intention dishonestly induced the de facto complainant who is the owner of hotel named Kovilakam Residency in Calicut get into agreement with OYO for the purpose of marketing their hotel rooms and it is alleged that the rooms were allotted by the accused in this crime by getting into the website of the de facto complainant's hotel by deceit and the rooms were booked at a very low rate causing extensive loss of business to the de facto complainant, in consequence of which he filed a complaint in the year 2018 and the aforesaid crime was registered on 18.12.2018.

(3.) The applicants state that the allegations are not true. It is not clear as to what exactly the nature of cheating perpetrated by the applicants and it is also stated that they had hardly worked in the aforesaid company for about five months and that too was in the year 2015-16 and the complaint comes only in the year 2018 attributing the allegations to them. They are totally unaware of the aforesaid allegations which has no clarity. It is also stated that the exact loss which was allegedly sustained by the de facto complainant is also not quantified. In the event of their entering into an agreement with OYO, the de facto complainant had sustained any loss, it is only appropriate for him to raise a claim in civil court of competent jurisdiction and the applicants can no way he held responsible for cheating or the violation of the IT Act. They do not have any criminal antecedents. They are willing to cooperate with the investigation. A1 is presently employed in Ashoka University in Haryana whereas A6 is presently employed in Asianet and there is no possibility of their absconding or not cooperating with the investigation and therefore they seek pre-arrest bail in this matter.