The importance of custodial interrogation in disinterring useful information and materials, and the potential prejudice to the ongoing investigation if anticipatory bail is granted.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J.

1. The present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC.) seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 149/2022, dated 22.07.2022 under Sections 419/420/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC.) registered at PS Crime Branch.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are as follows:

i. On 22.07.2022, information was received at PS Crime Branch that a person named Lucky alongwith his associates was involved in cheating people and obtaining money from them on the pretext of getting their loans sanctioned under the 'Pradhan Mantri Mudra Loan' and received the said money in fake bank accounts. It was stated that Lucky and his associates opened several fake bank accounts in order to receive the money and had even purchased several SIM Cards to call people.

ii. Acting on the said information, the informer, alongwith a team of police personnel reached C-Block, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi at about 9:50 AM on 22.07.2022.

iii. The informer identified a person standing nearby as Lucky. Lucky was apprehended and under interrogation, disclosed that he and his associates cheated people on the pretext of getting their loans sanctioned. He had a mobile phone with a SIM Card bearing the mobile number 8109985536. On further interrogation, Lucky disclosed that he and his associates used the said mobile phone to call and speak with people about getting their loans sanctioned. He also stated that once the money was received in fake bank accounts opened by them, they used to withdraw the same and distribute it among themselves.

iv. Lucky led police party to his apartment, where in a room, two mobile phones, one diary, some bank cards and a laptop were found. The two mobile phones had SIM Cards bearing numbers 9721797446 and 7836025808. The diary contained details of several bank accounts. Three debit cards of accounts opened with Kotak Mahindra Bank, IndusInd Bank and Union Bank were also found alongwith one chequebook.

v. It was stated that Lucky further disclosed that the SIM Cards and bank accounts used by him and his associates were provided by persons namely Parveen and Vikesh @ Mintu with whom he met through Haresh, the present applicant who worked at Just Dial. It was stated that Haresh used to provide data relating to loan enquiries to Lucky, who then used to call the intended targets.

vi. The persons who were allegedly cheated by Lucky and his associates were interrogated by the police. It was stated that most of them informed the police that they were cheated on the pretext of getting their loans sanctioned.

vii. Subsequently, on the basis of the initial enquiry and recoveries made, the present FIR was registered under Sections 419/420/468/471/120B/34 of the IPC naming Lucky as an accused.

viii. Lucky was arrested on 23.07.2022 and remanded police custody. Debit cards, cheque books and SIM cards were recovered at his instance.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the present applicant was not named in the FIR and has only been made an accused based on the statement of Lucky, who is the main accused. It was submitted that the applicant is a well educated man who began working at Just Dial in December 2016 as a Relationship Manager.

4. It was submitted that the applicant was not one of the persons involved in making the alleged phone calls to people. He has not gained any monetary benefit out of the transactions alleged to have been made in the FIR. It was further submitted that the applicant is stated to have shared data with coaccused persons from 2018 to 2021. However, during his service period at Just Dial, i.e., from 2016 to September 2022, there was no complaint made against him.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant relied upon the following judgments:

i. Siddaram Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2011 (1) SCC 694 and in particular, paragraphs 89,93 and 99 thereof.

ii. Lupita Saluja v. Dggi