DEEP RAJENDRAKUMAR SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the captioned revision application under Sec. 438 read with Sec. 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSS, 2023), the petitioner seeks to challenge order dtd. 24/10/2024 passed below Exhibit-20 in ACB Special Case No.2 of 2024 by the Court of learned Special Judge (ACB) and Principle Session Judge, Junagadh whereby the said application filed under Sec. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short seeking to discharge from the alleged charges came to be rejected.

(2.) The case of the petitioner as emerging from the FIR are that on 19/1/2024, when original complainant was on duty, he received a letter dtd. 19/1/2024 from one Mr.Kartik Bhanderi that his account was freeze by Cyber Crime Cell Junagadh and when he requested to defreeze his account to accused no.1 and 3 as named in the FIR, they refused get his account defreeze and demanded Rs.25.00 Lacs in lieu of getting the account defreeze and thus complaint was registered followed by the inquiry. It is further alleged in the FIR that said Mr.Kartik Bhanderi tried to get defreeze his bank account and therefore, he called Cyber Crime Cell, Junagadh in the first week of January, 2024 who in turn was informed by the concerned officer that he was required to visit Junagadh. It is also alleged that said Mr.Kartik Bhanderi came to Junagadh from Bangalore on 14/1/2024 and visited office of Cyber Crime Cell on 16/1/2024 and met accused no. 3 as per FIR. It is further alleged that accused no. 3 met Mr.Kartik Bhanderi and informed him that there are transaction in Crores of Rupees from your account and he has to inform about the same to E.D. It is alleged that said Mr.Kartik Bhanderi also informed accused no. 3 that he is ready to give Rs.4.00 to Rs.5.00 Lakhs to defreeze his account; but accused no. 3 denied and thereafter accused no. 3 informed Mr.Kartik Bhanderi that accused No.1 is here and he wants to meet him. Accused No.1 asked Mr.Kartik Bhanderi to follow the instructions given by accused no. 3. It is further alleged that accused no. 1 has demanded Rs.25.00 lakhs to defreeze his account; but Mr.Bhanderi denied and sent a letter to the superior authority and upon which inquiry stood started by the complainant.

(3.) In the above factual background, the petitioner-org. accused preferred an application under Sec. 239 of the Code seeking to discharge from the array of the accused, the learned Special Judge, alleged offence which after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, rejected the said application. Hence, this revision.