IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Sulav Adhikari - Appellant
Versus
State of Govt. of NCT Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1484 of 2023, Crl.M.(Bail) 635 of 2023 and Bail Appln. 1485 of 2023, Crl.M.(Bail) 636 of 2023 and Bail Appln. 1515 of 2023, Crl.M.(Bail) 645 of 2023
Decided On : 26-09-2023
Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - IPC 420 - The court discussed the offense of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC in relation to the sale of a banned product through online platforms. The court highlighted the seriousness of online financial scams and the impact on public trust in digital transactions. The judgment emphasizes the need to view such offenses with the seriousness they deserve, recognizing their potential to disrupt the foundation of online transactions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in a cybercrime case related to the sale of a banned product through online platforms. The complainant alleged that orders were placed in his name without consent and charged him for the same.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused persons were allegedly involved in running a financial scam through online portals and did not grant anticipatory bail due to the serious nature of the allegations.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged cheating and financial scam by the accused persons through the sale of a banned product using online platforms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact of such scams on public trust in online financial transactions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications of the accused persons, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact of such scams on public trust in online financial transactions.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
1. The present applications have been filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C') on behalf of applicants seeking anticipatory bail in the case arising out of FIR bearing no. 15/2023, registered at Police Station Cyber (West), Delhi for offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant Manish Meena against the present petitioners for committing the offence of cheating by way of advertising and selling of banned product Pink Flamingo Neimo 2.0 through facebook. It was alleged that on 03.03.2023 when complainant was out of Delhi, a courier was received in his name, while he had placed no such order. However, one of his office staff members had received the courier and had paid a sum of Rs.4,000/-. It was alleged by the complainant that the payment was made by Amarjeet Kaur from her account, who is an employee of complainant. The complainant had reported the same at the office of Blue Dart where he was informed that the order was delivered by Nimbus India and the refund for the delivery was made to the complainant from Paytm mobile number registered in the name of applicant/accused, Sulav Adhikari. On the next day, when office staff of the complainant had contacted Blue Dart, they had received another call asking for an OTP, and they were informed that the money of complainant will be received within 24 hours. Thereafter, the complainant had received his money back in the name of Sulav Adhikari whose Paytm number was ***959, and after a few hours a sum of Rs.4100/- was deducted from the account of the complainant. On 10.03.2023, a courier boy came to the complainant, but the company name was XPRESSBEES. The complainant was asked for an OTP which he refused to give and denied to receive the package.
3. The police had seized 2 shipments which had contained 12 nail polishes but shipment was prepared with a label of Pink Flamingo Neimo 2.0 product. Thereafter, learned Trial Court had dismissed anticipatory bail applications moved by applicants/accused persons vide order dated 25.04.2023.
4. Learned counsel for applicants states that no offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out against applicants. It is stated that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also stated that applicants are the employees of Suson Adhikari Media (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. which conducts online sale and purchase of beauty products. The company had delivered the products ordered by complainant herein and the payment was made for them, however, a cancellation request with refund was made and entire amount was returned to the complainant. A second order was placed on 06.03.2023 by the complainant and accordingly, delivery was made. It is stated that the applicants have not cheated the complainant of any money. Therefore, bail be granted.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, states that this is a cybercrime case whereby multiple people have been cheated off by applicants herein. It is stated that applicants appeared in the police station after issuance of notice under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. and they were examined however, they did not cooperate in the investigation. It is also stated that during investigation, CDR of complainant was examined and no message was found with regard to placing of any such order. It is further stated that the employees of applicants namely, Surender Rabidas and Azhar, in their statement had stated that no product with the name of Pink Flamingo Wireless was being sold by the company. However, upon conducting further investigation, and as per data provided by Nimbus Post Pvt. Ltd. that a total of 6267 orders out of 20590 orders have been placed for the Pink Flamingo. It is stated that since investigation is at an initial stage and in order to unearth the conspiracy that has been happening on a much larger scale,
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.
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.
Anticipatory bail denied due to serious allegations of fraud, necessity for custodial interrogation, and applicants' absconding status.
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.