The court ruled that the serious nature of allegations involving significant financial fraud justified the denial of bail despite procedural claims of rights violations.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is a bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], filed on behalf of the applicant/accused Kanon Evarad @ Kanon for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 33/2023, PS EOW, Mandir Marg, under Section 419/420/467/468/471/120-B/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66 read with Section 43/55 (C) & 66 (D) of the Information & Technology Act.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant was apprehended and arrested from Greater Noida. However, the Investigating Officer [“IO”] neither informed the concerned Police Station of Greater Noida nor made any entry to this effect at the concerned Police Station of Greater Noida. The alleged search and seizure at the applicant’s residence was not as per Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No document has been placed on record to indicate that the alleged house from which the recovery has been affected, belongs to the applicant. IO has denied the accused of his right to consult his lawyer before he was taken out of the State. IO failed to adhere to the mandatory procedural requirement of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 50 Cr. PC. It is submitted that IO has neither informed the grounds of arrest to the applicant at the time of apprehending him from his residence nor at the time of arresting him at PS EOW, Mandir Marg.

3. It is further submitted that investigation has been completed and charge sheet has already been filed. Applicant is in custody for the last ten months and there is no possibility of completion of trial shortly. It is also submitted that there is no chance of the applicant absconding from the course of justice, as his passport has already been impounded by the IO.

4. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by the learned Additional PP, appearing for the State, submitting that applicant/accused is a Nigerian National and he along with other co-accused have cheated huge money by hacking the server of Kangra Cooperative Bank and siphoned off money by using mobile internet/hacking software through various bank accounts. It is submitted that 151 fraudulent transactions were made and the total defrauded amount is to the tune of Rs. 7.79 crores. It has been submitted that applicant/accused has been arrested at the instance of his accomplice Chigozie Kenneth Okonkwo @ Ken, who was caught in CCTV footage while withdrawing the cheated money by using the ATM card of one Ms. Neelima Adhikari.

5. It is further submitted that house search of the applicant has led to the recovery of 13 mobile phones, apart from two high-end mobile phones, 5 laptops, cheque books, bank passbooks of Indian Nationals, 4 International SIM cards and 4 Airtel SIM Cards. It is also stated that on analysis of the personal mobile phone of the applicant, it is found to contain a large number of messages delivered to various mobile numbers having secret bank account details of several Indian Nationals. The applicant is also accused of having installed an application namely “Dingtone” in his mobile phone, which is used for the purpose of calling/messaging from international phone numbers of many countries. It is further submitted that applicant/accused has not cooperated during the police remand and misled the police team while searching the co-accused persons.

6. Learned Additional PP further submits that the accused was provided the copy of the remand application, which contained the grounds of arrest and such grounds were explained to him.

7. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a Nigerian National and does not know English and that the grounds of arrest were not explained to him in the language known to him, and therefore, it is not a sufficient compliance of Article 22 of the Constitution. In support of such argument, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lallu Bhai Jogi Bhai Pa