Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 1558
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Saimul Hoda - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 1155 of 2020
Decided On : 12-11-2020
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Fraud
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.420
Headnote
Bail - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought bail in relation to FIR No.189/2017, PS Crime Branch, New Delhi under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The allegations involved fraudulent activities related to mobile transactions and issuance of fake mobile SIMs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant was allegedly deeply involved in a nexus and had played a vital role in the conspiracy by providing mobile numbers issued on fake IDs or without the knowledge of the subscribers. The court also noted the severity of the impact on members of the public being cheated and duped of their money.
Issues: The issues revolved around the involvement of the applicant in fraudulent activities, the nexus and conspiracy related to the issuance of fake mobile SIMs, and the severity of the impact on the public.
Ratio Decidendi: The court declined the bail application based on the alleged involvement of the applicant in fraudulent activities and the severity of the impact on the public.
Final Decision: The application for bail was declined.
JUDGMENT
Anu Malhotra, J. The applicant, vide the present application seeks the grant of bail in relation to FIR No.189/2017, PS Crime Branch, New Delhi under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting inter alia to the effect:
2. Notice of the application was issued to the State and accepted by the learned APP on behalf of the State.
3. Pursuant to proceedings dated 08.06.2020, 19.06.2020, 02.07.2020, 09.07.2020, 20.07.2020, the status reports dated 15.06.2020, an undated status report, 30.06.2020, 07.07.2020, 27.07.2020 and written submissions dated 08.07.2020 and the chart of details of numbers utilized in the alleged commission of crime were submitted on behalf of the State.
4. Written submissions have also been submitted on behalf of the applicant along with the copies of rulings sought to be relied upon on behalf of the applicant.
5. As regards the aspect of the ailment of the father of the applicant and the ailment of the daughter of the applicant vide order dated 19.06.2020, it has been specifically observed to the effect that the document which the applicant had submitted in relation to his daughter's ailment related to the year 2017 and could thus not be considered qua the submission made on behalf of the applicant that the applicant's daughter still continues to suffer with the kidney disorder.
6. As regards the ailment of the father of the applicant and the number of persons available at the house of the applicant to look after his father, the State was directed to submit a status report vide order dated 19.07.2020. The status report dated 30.06.2020 under the signatures of the ACP, Cyber Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi indicates that though the father of the applicant undoubtedly is bed ridden due to broken hip joint & fracture in femur (left leg), further enquiries have revealed that there are four other family members of the petitioner including his two younger brothers namely Faizul Hoda (Age-32 Years), Jaimul Hoda (Age-27 Years) and his mother and his wife are available there to take care of his father and the elder brother of the petitioner namely Khairul Hoda @ Babblu Hoda also resides in the same locality. Thus, qua the aspect of the ailment of the father of the applicant too, the prayer made by the applicant, cannot be granted.
7. The allegations in the instant case emanate from a complaint lodged by Smt.Bhanu Prabha Gupta alleging that she received a call on 15.07.2017 on her mobile no. 9868929619 from mobile no.9563221857 in which the caller masqueraded himself as being a bank employee and asked her the details of her ATM card in the name of the activation of the blocked card and that the complainant followed the instructions of the caller and shared her SBI ATM CARD details due to which she received an OTP on her mobile number. The caller is then alleged to have asked the complainant the OTP, on which she had informed the caller of the receipt of the OTP on the same mobile number on wh
