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.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J. This is a second application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No. 30/2021, under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC'), Sections 4/20/21/25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at P.S. Hauz Qazi.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the present applicant, alongwith co-accused persons had entered into a conspiracy and established an illegal telephone exchange. It is alleged that by way of establishing the said exchange, huge monetary loss was caused to the government exchequer and telecommunication sector, as international calls can be terminated in India through Department of Telecom (`DOT') licensed operators only. It is the case of the prosecution that the said telephone exchange was set up in Chawri Bazar, Delhi and run by the present applicant. It is alleged that the present applicant was using `New Era Software Driver Technology' for routing calls from countries like United States of America, Canada, United Arab Emirates and Australia, via an illegal route over the internet, by-passing the legal international and national call gateways of India. It is alleged that the said set-up was being run by the name of `Adeeba Enterprises'.

3. On prior information regarding commission of the alleged offences, a team of police officials raided the premises and seized the articles used in running of the said telephone exchange. The present applicant was arrested on 07.10.2021 and has been in custody since then.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the first application for bail on behalf of the applicant was dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in BAIL APPLN. 1243/2022. It was submitted that the aforesaid application was dismissed with the observation that apart from the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of the applicant tampering with the evidence at that stage was not ruled out. It was submitted that in the present case, the chargesheet was filed on 08.04.2021 and thereafter two supplementary chargesheets have been filed on 26.11.2021 and 25.02.2022. It was pointed out that all the evidence in the present case is documentary in nature and that despite passage of so many years of judicial custody, charges have not been framed. It was further submitted that the prosecution has cited 49 witnesses and therefore, the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that two of the accused persons in the present case have been granted bail by this Court. It was further submitted that after the dismissal of the bail application by a learned Single Judge of this Court, as recorded hereinabove, the FSL reports have been received and as per the latest status report filed by the State, investigation is still continuing with regard to certain deposits of money which have come to surface after the FSL report was received.

6. Per contra, learned APP for the State submitted that the applicant committed an offence of a huge magnitude. It was further submitted that the previous application for bail was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on merits and since then, there has been no change in circumstances. It was pointed out that the present applicant had purchased 04 IBM and 01 HP SIP server from one Montu Mandal for Rs.2,90,000/-. It was further stated in the status report that a hawala transaction of Rs.90 lakhs was involved and out of the said amount, Rs.45 lakhs was allegedly given by the present applicant to one Irfan Ali.

7. To corroborate the said allegation, it was pointed out that in the FSL report in relation to the phone used by the present applicant, chats with one Murtaza have been retrieved, showing that the present applicant was dealing with hawala transaction