Gujarat High Court Declines To Discharge Man Accused Of Aiding Cops Who Tried To Extort Complainant After Account Freeze

The Gujarat High Court refused to discharge a man booked for allegedly giving complainant's bank account details to cops accused of trying to extort and seek gratification in lieu of de-freezing the complainant's bank account.

The court observed that "prima facie" there appeared to be ample material to put the accused to trial.

The petitioner had moved the high court against a trial court order which refused to discharge in a case where the charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 385(Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion), 389(Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion), 114(Abettor present when offence is committed) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) IPC and under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. 

Justice RT Vachchani in his order said: 

"Thus, from the narration of the above facts, as also the statements recorded during the course of investigation, as also referred too by the learned Court below while rejecting the discharge application, it appears that on the basis of the chatting on WhatsApp and screenshots shared as to the entries run in 300 to 400 numbers by the petitioner-accused wherein the details as to the name of the Bank, IFSC Code, Name of the Account Holder, Account Details, name of the Sites and contact numbers were provided and after accumulating the said details in the Excel Sheet at the instance of the applicant, it was shared with the main perpetrators at the hands of the present petitioner–accused".

The court also noted that as per the statements recorded by the Investigating Agency after providing and sharing the information to the main perpetrators, the petitioner destroyed his mobile phone while deleting the WhatsApp chats between him and the main accused.

The court said that it appeared that the statements of witnesses "pinches the involvement of the accused in the offence in question". 

"The above material would reveal that prima facie there appears to be ample material at least to put the petitioner–accused to trial and therefore, considering the said aspect, the learned Court below seems to have rightly rejected the discharge application. Furthermore, present petitioner–accused is not only involved in the offence in question; but as per the police report, he is found to have involved in three other different offices registered with different Police Station, which shows the antecedents aspect on the part of the petitioner – accused". 

The prosecution had alleged that a complaint was lodged by one Kartik Bhanderi complaining that his account had been frozen by the Cyber Crime Cell, Junagadh. When he called the Cyber Crime Cell, Junagadh to defreeze his Bank account, he was informed to visit.

When he visited and met with accused No.3 and tried to explain to him about his non-involvement with respect to the transactions in question the complainant was threatened of being implicated in a serious offence and that he would be arrested.

This left the complainant with no option but to succumb to the demands of the co-accused by showing his readiness to give the gratification to the tune of Rs.4 Lakh to Rs. 5 Lakh so that his account gets de-freezed.

However the complainant sent a letter to the Superior officers leading to a preliminary inquiry from which it appeared that the petitioner was allegedly involved in sharing information in the form of Excel Sheets which includes the details of different Bank Accounts with the main perpetrators.

The petitioner argued that if the FIR and the charge-sheet is read together, prima facie, nowhere shows the direct involvement of the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the main perpetrators. 

Thus the charges against him of being part of a conspiracy hatched with the co-accused, preparing excel sheet containing details of bank accounts etc., and destroying the same, has no substance and that he did not abate the main perpetrators in the commission of the crime in question as alleged by the prosecution.

The State referred to statements of witnesses who worked in the petitioner's Call Center had said that she had prepared the information on the bank accounts on an  Excel Sheet and forwarded it to the petitioner.

The State submitted that submit that material placed along with the final report is sufficient for framing of the charge and to conduct the trial against the petitioner.

Case title: DEEP RAJENDRAKUMAR SHAH v/s STATE OF GUJARAT

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 158