‘Curative survey scam’: Court grants bail to accused software developer

Srinagar, March 26: A court in Srinagar on Tuesday granted bail to the only accused arrested by the cyber police in the ‘curative survey scam’.

The scam came to light on December 19, 2023, when numerous victims found themselves deceived after they were falsely promised huge returns on their investments.

The company – operating under the guise of ‘Curative Survey Private Limited – unresponsive, triggered chaos, anguish, and public protests.

Acting swiftly, a case (FIR No. 39/2023) was registered under Section 66D of the IT Act and Section 420 of the IPC at the Cyber Police Station in Kashmir Zone-Srinagar.

On 31st December 2023, police said that it had identified six-accused and arrested one among them from Tamil Nadu. He was identified as Vinoth John Kennedy S/o John Kennedy R/o 1020, Kurinji Nagar, Sivaganga, Tamil Nadu.

Vinoth, a software developer by profession, was asked by the owners of the company to create a website (curativesurvey.com) for them.

Since his arrest, Vinoth was in prison for the last three months, however, except Vinoth, police have been unable to reach to other accused while no development in the case was informed by the police till date.

In his judgement regarding the case, learned Forest Magistrate Feroz Ahmad Khan said, the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail.

“The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.”

“It is a fundamental principle of the law of bails that bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” the magistrate said.

Refusal of the bail is a curtailment on personal liberty of the individual guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The seriousness of offence has not to be treated as the only ground for refusal of the bail. Further at this stage, it would not be proper for this court to express any opinion on the merits and de-merits of the prosecution case as well that of the defence, he said.

The counsel for the applicant led by learned advocate Zahoor Ahmad Khan alias Ayaan Khan contended that there is no bar for this court to release the accused on bail, who has been in custody for months together. That no notice was served to the accused under Section 41-A CrPC.

Further, Ayaan contended that investigation of the case is completed and the accused is not required to be kept in custody. It was further contended that the charge-sheet has been filed against the accused before this court.

Ayaan said that the applicant has been arrayed as accused in the matter for the only reason given by the police that “during the course of investigation some amount has been found in the bank account of the applicant, which under no circumstances would have attracted Section 427 IPC.”

“The charge-sheet against the accused has been filed by the Police Station Cyber Crime, which means that the investigation of the case is complete and the custody of the accused is not required for any personal interrogation. The accused is also not charged with commission of offences, which may attract the bar for not releasing him as provided under Section 437 Cr.PC, as the offence under Section 420 IPC does not carry punishment either for life or death sentence. The maximum punishment for an offence under Section 420 of IPC is imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years,” the court said.

“The accused has been in custody for a period of more than three months, weighs in the mind of this court and a balance between the rights of the accused as to his liberty and the larger public interest of the society has to be struck. Further the nature of the accusations against the accused are not so grave and heinous as to curtail his liberty in perpetuity,” the magistrate said.

“In view of the charges leveled against the accused in the charge-sheet and as appearing in the police report, taking-into-consideration the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh respectively, I am of the considered opinion that applicant has made out a case for grant of bail more so, particularly when the accused has been in custody for the period of more than three months. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed subject to furnishing of bail bonds with two sureties of like amount to the tune of Rs. 1 lac each on the following conditions:

1. a) That the accused will not try to win over or influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
2. b) That the accused will participate in the trial before this court.”