Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J.
Kapil Taneja (in Jc) – Appellant
Versus
State, (Govt. NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Bail Appln. 3577 of 2022
Decided On : 11-01-2023
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought regular bail in a case where he was charged with cheating citizens of the United States of America through a fake call center. The applicant was arrested and had been in judicial custody. The investigation was complete, and a chargesheet had been filed against the applicant and 33 others.Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the applicant, considering the noncompliance of Section 41A of CrPC and the lack of evidence supporting the allegations. The court also noted that further investigation was being conducted by the FBI in the USA.Issues:
Noncompliance of Section 41A of CrPC, lack of evidence supporting the allegations, further investigation by the FBI.Ratio Decidendi:
The court considered the noncompliance of Section 41A of CrPC and relied on various judgments in support. The court found that there was no evidence presented to support the allegations and that further investigation was being conducted by the FBI in the USA.Final Decision:
The court allowed the bail application and imposed certain conditions on the applicant.JUDGMENT
Amit Sharma J. The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') has been moved on behalf of Sh. Kapil Taneja (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant') seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 217/2022, under Sections 419/420/120B/34/389 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at PS Crime Branch.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was arrested in the present case on 21.09.2022. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer was granted 5 days police remand during investigation from 21.09.2022 to 26.09.2022 and thereafter, the applicant has been in judicial custody.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there was noncompliance of Section 41A of Cr.P.C and relies upon the following judgments, in support thereof:
i. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
ii. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51
iii. Sunny v. State NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 1107/2022
iv. Munawar v. State of M.P., 2021(3) SCC 712
v. Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (DCP) & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5574.
4. It is further submitted that the investigation qua the present applicant is complete and chargesheet has been filed against the present applicant and 33 others on 17.11.2022. It is pointed out that only the present applicant is in judicial custody and the chargesheet qua other 33 persons was filed without arrest.
5. It is further urged that the allegation in the chargesheet is that the applicant alongwith 33 other persons were found engaged in cheating citizens of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as `USA') from a fake call centre. However, it is submitted that no evidence has been placed on record by the prosecution agency to support the aforesaid allegation.
6. In support of his application, the learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon;
i. Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448.
ii. Delhi Police Standing Order No. 109/2020.
iii. Santosh s/o Dwarkadas Fafat v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 9 SCC 714.
iv. Manoj Kumar Hota v. State NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 3050 of 2021.
v. Devender Kumar Mishra v. State, BAIL APPLN. 2854 of 2021
7. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the present applicant and the other co-accused persons as mentioned in Column 11 of the chargesheet were cheating foreign nationals and the same was bringing bad name to the country. He further submits that the further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. is continuing. It is further submitted that co-accused Akash @ Ankush Sachdeva is evading investigation.
8. Learned APP for the State relied upon the status report dated 31.12.2022, authored by the Investigating Officer, Inspector Satish Malik, PS Crime Branch. The prosecution case, as per the said status report, is as under:
"1. That the brief facts of the case are that on 20.09.2022, a secret information was received that a large scale cyber scam call centre is operating in Okhla, Phase-I, Delhi which is involved in cheating innocent people online. The police team led by SI Jitender and staff reached at the location as per pointing out of the secret informer. Meanwhile one man was seen coming out of a building later on identified as D-1/94, 2 First Floor, Phase-I, Okhla, Delhi pointed out by secret informer. He became suspicious about the presence of police party and turned back and rushed inside the building. He was chased and caught hold outside First Floor. He revealed his name as Kapil Taneja S/o Govind Parkash, R/o G-49, GF Gali No. 12, Hari Nagar Extn., New Delhi-110058, Age-44 yrs, Mobile No. 9999452798. During enquiry he told that he is running fake call centre along with his associates and at present tele callers are inside the hall. Those persons/operators were engaged in communicating with the US resident vic
Anticipatory bail requires compelling circumstances; custodial interrogation is vital for effective investigation, and bail should not be granted as a routine measure when serious allegations exist.
The judgment emphasizes the need to balance personal liberty with the security of the community, considering the gravity of the alleged economic offences and the period of sentence.
The active involvement of the accused in the fraudulent call center business and the stage of the investigation were crucial factors in the court's decision to dismiss the bail application.
The severity of the offense, the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution, and the likelihood of the accused absconding are key considerations in determining bail applications.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and the gravity of the offence is an aspect to be kept in view by the Court. The c....
The importance of custodial interrogation in disinterring useful information and materials, and the potential prejudice to the ongoing investigation if anticipatory bail is granted.
Offence of Cheating - Refusal to grant Anticipatory Bail - There is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner is suffering from any co-morbidity which is likely to affect him due to COVID-19 pande....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
