IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.
Irshad Ahmad - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 894 of 2024 & Cr.M.A. 7752 of 2024
Decided On : 13-03-2024
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure - The court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail based on the petitioner's failure to join the investigation, the modus operandi of the fraud, and the grave nature of the allegations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving operating a fake call center and defrauding customers by impersonating as employees of Amazon.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to join the investigation, and the modus operandi of the fraud required deeper investigation. The court also noted the involvement of hawala transactions and the petitioner's association with the illegal call center.
Issues: Failure to join investigation, modus operandi of the fraud, involvement in hawala transactions, and association with the illegal call center.
Ratio Decidendi: The nature of the fraud, the petitioner's failure to join the investigation, and the grave nature of the allegations were considered in dismissing the application for anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
ORDER
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. (Oral)
1. An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.0014/2024, under Sections 419/420/120B/34 IPC and Sections 66C/66D of IT Act, registered at P.S.: Crime Branch, Delhi.
2. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution and status report placed before learned ASJ, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, on the intervening night of 11/12.01.2024, on a secret information, a raid was conducted at H. No. 426, 1st Floor, Village Kakrola, Delhi, wherein, a fake call centre was found being operated by accused SK Aslam and Rai Singh. 11 tele-callers were also present at the spot, who were making/receiving calls through computer/laptops and head phones.
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that tele-callers were impersonating themselves as employees of Amazon and receiving calls from customers, who were facing problems related to Amazon Prime Videos and other services provided by Amazon. Further, on receipt of calls, the said tele-callers convinced the customers, based in foreign countries, to buy gift vouchers (i.e. Amazon, eBay, Nord, etc.) and further asked the customers to scratch the card and provide the said numbers for the purpose of encashing, in order to obtain illegal gains. It is also alleged that some other person by way of hacking system dropped pop-up messages on the screen of the customers, whereby, the customers used to call on the numbers dropped through the said messages and the calls would get connected to the fraudsters. Vicky Sharma @ Kunal Sharma @ Peter @ Bryan and applicant/petitioner Irshad Ahmad are alleged to be the owners and kingpin of the scam.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was only one of the Directors of M/s Tremendous Trips Private Limited, of which, Vicky Sharma was also the Director and had been managing, operating and conducting the affairs of the company. It is urged that several documents including Certificate from Registrar of Companies, UDYAM Registration Certificate, DGFT Certificate and the application for operating the business for 24 hours sought from the concerned DCP reflect that Vicky Sharma was running the business. It is also submitted that Vicky Sharma was also associated with Avast business as well as AWS and the petitioner had no connectivity with the said business.
It is emphasized by him that co-accused Vicky Sharma and two Managers are already in custody and nothing is to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, since the digital devices have already been seized.
It is also pointed out that there is no evidence in possession of the Investigating Agency to link the petitioner/applicant with any alleged fraud committed by Vicky Sharma.
It is further submitted that there is no complainant/victim, who has made any allegations of fraud/duping by the accused and the entire investigation has been initiated only on the basis of secret information. It is contended that in the absence of any loss or gain, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not made out and WhatsApp messages, relied upon by the prosecution, are yet to be supplied to the petitioner and not relevant against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the application and points out that petitioner has failed to join investigation despite service of notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. which was affixed on the premises of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that despite issuance of non-bailable warrants, petitioner has evaded to join the investigation and the scam involves hawala transactions since the money received from encashing of said gift vouchers was received abroad and the benefits thereof have been illegally transferred in favour of the accused. It is further submitted that there is sufficient evidence with the Investigating Agency by way of Whatsapp messages, which were collected during the cou
Failure to join the investigation, the modus operandi of the fraud, and the grave nature of the allegations are crucial factors in deciding on anticipatory bail applications.
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....
The judgment establishes the need to view offenses related to online financial scams with the seriousness they deserve, recognizing their potential to disrupt the foundation of online transactions.
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.
Anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional cases; the court must balance individual rights with societal interests, especially in serious economic offences.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.