The court emphasized that bail should be granted when the charge sheet is filed and continued detention serves no purpose, unless serious risks of absconding are present.

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 86/2021 under Sections 419/420/120B IPC registered at P.S. Special Cell.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint of Sh. Subrata Viswas was received at CyPAD, wherein complainant alleged that he was looking for a job and had put his resume at Indeed Career and other job portal. Thereafter, he received phone calls on behalf of Indeed Career job portal and they cheated the total amount of Rs 19,74,153/-on the pretext of registration fee for premium services, document verification fee, top management profile fee, fee to qualify aptitude test, fee for seat reservation etc. Thereafter, on being found cheated, complainant reported at Cyber Crime Portal and technical enquiry was got conducted on his complaint and accordingly, the present case was registered and investigation went underway.

3. During investigation, on 25/03/21, a raid was conducted at Office No. 1032B, B-2, 10th Floor, Spaze ITech Park, Sector 49 Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, wherein five accused persons namely Manoj Kumar Hota (present petitioner), Ashish Ranjan, Abhishek Kumar, Sonu Rawal, Shaik Pintu Ali were found running a fake call center to cheat job seekers. After interrogation, above five accused persons were arrested in the case.

4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State, perused the Status Report filed by the State and also perused the records of this case.

5. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet in this case has already been filed and the petitioner is not required for any investigation purposes. He further submitted that all the other 4 co-accused have already been released on bail and the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on the basis of parity. He further submitted that there is a delay in lodging the FIR as the first alleged incident happened on 22.02.2020, when the first alleged transaction was done by the complainant but the FIR was got registered only on 24.03.2021.

6. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that name and mobile number of the petitioner are not mentioned in the FIR and the name of the petitioner was never disclosed to the police by the complainant at any point of time. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that not even a single penny out of the alleged cheated amount of Rs. 19,74,153/-has been deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. He further submitted that the FIR was lodged against 13 private persons, 4 companies and 5 bank managers but the IO has neither arrested them nor charge sheeted them and falsely implicated the petitioner.

7. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the maximum punishment provided for the offences for which the petitioner has been charged with is 7 years or less. He further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the alleged premises from where the petitioner was running fake call centre belonged to the petitioner. Rather, the same belonged to one co-accused who has already been released on bail. He further submitted that the petitioner has no connection or concern with the companies M/s Zottic Career Choice Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sandip Edu Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s BSEPL Edu Con ( OPC) Pvt. Ltd. and the IO had deliberately not made those companies an accused in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is in J.C. since 25.03.2021. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

(a) Bail Appln. 3967/2020 titled as Mayank Sharma Vs. The State decided by this Court on 19.01.2021.

(b) Bail Appln. 3791/2020 titled as Sai Chandrasekhar Vs. Directorate of Enforcement decided by this Court on 05.03.2021.

(c) Bail Appln. 1606/2020 titled as Ashok Panwar @ Ashok Pawar Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) decided by this Court on 04.08.20