Back
slams sham investigation, grants bail to Vishal Sharma in cyber fraud case
High Court Takes Strong Exception to Police Apathy
In a strongly worded order, the High Court of Delhi granted regular bail to Vishal Sharma, who had been in custody for nearly ten months in connection with an alleged cyber fraud. Justice Girish Kathpalia, while allowing the bail application, pulled up the investigating officer for what he termed "" and a complete lack of sincerity in the probe.
The Allegations and the Arrest
The case originated from an FIR registered on , at the . The complainant, Dipesh Soni, alleged that he met a woman named Isha Rajput on the dating app . Their conversations moved to WhatsApp, where Rajput induced him to invest through the . Soni invested Rs. 25,000, which purportedly grew to Rs. 1.90 lakh. However, when he sought to withdraw his profits, he was told his account was frozen and was asked to deposit an additional Rs. 2.65 lakh. Realizing the fraud, Soni lodged a complaint. During investigation, it was found that Rs. 1.40 lakh of the cheated amount had been transferred to Sharma's bank account, leading to his arrest.
Defense and Prosecution Arguments
Sharma's counsel, , contended that the transaction was a genuine business deal that had failed. He argued that Sharma had opened the account on the advice of co-accused Abhishek and that the entire matter was a business relationship gone sour. Counsel further alleged that the IO was deliberately shielding the real accused, Isha Rajput and Abhishek, because their arrest would reveal the transaction's legitimacy.
The prosecution, represented by APP , opposed bail, citing the ongoing investigation and Sharma's involvement in another cyber fraud case in Jaipur.
Court's Scathing Observations
Justice Kathpalia, after reviewing the updated status report, found that the investigation had remained at a standstill. He noted that despite two previous orders directing proper investigation, the IO had made no sincere effort to arrest the co-accused. The court observed that Abhishek had been served a notice in but no further action was taken. Regarding Isha Rajput, had not responded to multiple notices, yet the IO did not pursue legal remedies. The court also noted that the IO had not even obtained screenshots of conversations or call logs from the complainant's phone.
The judge remarked,
"The updated status report reflects nothing but
carried out by the IO to somehow justify the
of the present accused/applicant."
He further observed,
"No serious effort appears to have been made to arrest the co-accused Abhishek and no serious effort appears to have been made to even trace out the co-accused Isha Rajput. From material on record as on date, it cannot be ruled out that Isha Rajput is a fictitious name."
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
"The updated status report reflects nothing but carried out by the IO to somehow justify the of the present accused/applicant."
-
"No serious effort appears to have been made to arrest the co-accused Abhishek and no serious effort appears to have been made to even trace out the co-accused Isha Rajput."
-
"From material on record as on date, it cannot be ruled out that Isha Rajput is a fictitious name."
-
"The IO is carrying out only paperwork in the name of investigation and taking no serious steps."
Bail Granted with Conditions
Finding that keeping Sharma in jail was not justified given the , the court allowed the bail application. Sharma was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate. The court clarified that its observations should not prejudice the trial and that the trial court would take an independent view based on the evidence.
Implications
The ruling serves as a strong reminder to investigating agencies that courts will not tolerate that lead to prolonged pretrial detention. It underscores the principle that , especially when the investigation itself is languishing due to official apathy.
