The decision to grant transit remand must be based on prima facie evidence, not merely on the absence of cogent evidence, especially in serious financial fraud cases.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , 1950 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973,, [“CrPC”] is directed against order dated 24^th February, 2025 passed by the Duty Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in the proceedings emanating from FIR No. 60/2024 under Section s 66C /66D of the Information Technology Act , 2000, read with Section s 120-B , 170, 384, 419, 420, 465, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 registered at Cyber Police Station, Kolkata on 17^th June, 2024. Through the said order, the Magistrate declined the request made by the Petitioner/State of West Bengal for transit remand of Respondent No. 2, and instead, granted Respondent No. 2 interim/transit bail to enable him to approach the competent court for seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law.

2. On 25^th February, 2025, this Court, after extensive arguments, issued an interim order staying the directions in the impugned order. At that stage, although counsel for Respondent No. 2 was granted an opportunity to conclude their arguments, however, they sought a short accommodation to file a reply. Accordingly, the matter was listed for today, i.e., the next working day, considering the urgency of the issue at hand.

3. Today, Respondent No. 2 is represented by Mr. Hariharan, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate. They could not file their vakalatnama today, as Respondent No. 2 is in custody, however, they have assured the Court that the same will be filed at the earliest possible opportunity.

4. Nonetheless, Mr. Hariharan, on instructions, has stated that no reply to the petition is necessary, and instead, he would make oral submissions.

5. Accordingly, the Court has proceeded to hear the matter.

Petitioner’s Case

6. In addition to the facts noted in the previous order, Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior Counsel for Petitioner, has filed a note highlighting the role of Respondent No. 2 in the alleged offence, with copy to the other side.

A copy of the said note has been handed over across the board and is taken on record. The note delineates the following:

6.1 FIR No. 60/2024 was registered at Cyber Police Station, Kolkata, pursuant to the complaint of Ms. Debeshi Datta, alleging that she received messages from law enforcement agencies claiming that she was involved in money laundering. She was asked to remit money into accounts of the following entities: (i) Valley Aluminium; (ii) M/s Bhat Gas House and (iii) Brainburst Robotics and others.

6.2 Following the complaint, the investigation revealed a transfer of INR 47 lakh into a bank account at Jana Small Finance Bank in Kolkata, under the name of M/s Brain Burst Robotics, with Ms. Uma Jacinta Burney (Accused No. 1) as the beneficiary. She was arrested and disclosed her association with M/s Donedeal, operated by Chirag Kapoor in Patuli, Kolkata.

6.3 A raid at M/s Donedeal’s office and Chirag Kapoor’s residence led to the arrest of Accused Nos. 1 to 7, who admitted to opening bank accounts in their names in exchange of a commission, under the direction of one Chirag Kapoor. Accused No. 8 was also arrested, and further disclosure statements were made.

6.4 Digital data seized in the case revealed that Chirag Kapoor had opened over 500 fake accounts, for which purpose toolkits were created, including registered mobile numbers, SIM cards, registered login data, and login credentials, enabling him to manage bank accounts, particularly regarding the inflow and outflow of funds.

6.5 Chirag Kapoor, upon his arrest, disclosed that he was operating under the instructions of Yogesh Dua (Respondent No. 2