Bengaluru: Three months ago, the Bengaluru police arrested a 32-year-old woman, who hailed from West Bengal and was staying in Horamavu, on charges of cheating a leading e-commerce company to the tune of over Rs 69.9 lakh. Eventually, a court granted her bail.
In a new twist to the case, the police found out during the investigation that a 24-year old software engineer, a relative of the prime accused, was also involved in cheating the e-commerce company. He was later made the second accused in the case.
Fearing arrest, the youth had approached the High Court, seeking anticipatory bail and the court granted bail, but with conditions. The court ordered that he should appear before the investigating officer, who is at liberty to interrogate him and recover any incriminating material under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The High Court, in its order on August 18, stated that in the event of his arrest, he should be released on bail on executing a self-bond for a sum of Rs 1 lakh with one surety for the like sum.
The allegation is that the Accused No. 2, Sourish Bose, created an e-mail ID under the name, Rajshree96, and placed orders for articles like music gadgets, television sets and cameras with the e-commerce company and received the articles at different addresses. “Within 24 hours of receiving of the articles, he would return them to the company raising objections. At the time of returning, he would give the address of the first accused his aunt. Immediately after the goods were returned, the price of the articles would be credited into the account of the first accused. He raised claims on 104 such articles and cheated the company of Rs 69,91,940,” the police alleged.
The Bengaluru police, who arrested the first woman accused, had revealed the modus operandi. They stated that every time, the delivery address was different from the C-return address, which was often in other cities. “After getting a repayment from the e-commerce company, the first accused would replace the product with a substandard one and hand over the package to the delivery person,” the police said. The woman was cheating the company for nearly a year as the company then did not have the policy of opening and inspecting the product at the time of re-accepting it.
The advocate for the second accused argued before the High Court that the first accused on whose address the articles were received was arrested and subsequently granted bail. “No order could be placed without a unique number and the complaint is silent about the unique number of the e-mail ID. The complaint allegation is vague and lacks material particulars with regard to a unique number of the e-mail ID. This petitioner is no way connected to the alleged offence,” the advocate argued.
However, the prosecution submitted before the court that in fact, the second accused is responsible for the alleged offence. “Though the orders for the products were placed with different addresses, while returning the articles, the common address in Bengaluru pertaining to the first accused was shown. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and the anticipatory bail if granted will hamper the investigation,” prosecution argued.
