Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarna Kanta Sharma, J
AMARDEEP SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-164/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pradeep Kumar Arya, Gaurav Bhardwaj, Sachin Bajpai, Raj Karan Sharma, Aditya Kumar Yadav, Gaurav Chaudhry, Vaibhav Chaudhry, Anubhav Rathi, Arunima Singh, Akshika Chaudhary, Hrishikesh Baruah, Anurag Mishra, Ayush Yadav, Aadarsh Singh, Ratnesh, Rajnandani Srivastava
For the Respondents: Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Kushagra Kumar, Amit Kumar Rana

The court held that anticipatory bail should be denied when there is prima facie evidence of fraudulent procurement of SIM cards used for cyber-crime, investigation is nascent, and custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the conspiracy.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 61(2)/318(4)/319 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 43/66B/66C/66D - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Fraudulent procurement of bulk SIM cards - Misuse of telecom resources for cyber-crime - Custodial interrogation - Nascent stage of investigation.

(B) The court held that where there is prima facie evidence of fabrication of end-user lists and abuse of KYC process to obtain thousands of SIM connections, and where such connections are linked to cyber-crime and financial fraud, the discretion to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised with due circumspection. The seriousness of the allegations and the necessity to unearth the full conspiracy, including the role of other facilitators, justify denial of pre-arrest bail at this stage. (Paras 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The company obtained 20,986 bulk SIM connections from a telecom service provider between 2020-2025 by furnishing false identity documents of persons projected as employees. End users examined stated they never authorized issuance of SIM cards in favour of the company. During investigation, the directors admitted that the end users were never employed by the company. Several SIM numbers issued were linked to cyber-crime complaints, including financial fraud involving approximately ₹1 lakh. The pattern of IMEI usage indicated SIM-box operations and automated calling, prohibited under DoT guidelines. The company's directors sought anticipatory bail.

Findings of Court:
The material collected prima facie establishes conscious involvement of both applicants in fabricating end-user lists and abusing the KYC process. The investigation is at a nascent stage and custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the full conspiracy. Offences involving deceptive messages and financial inducements pose a serious threat to public trust and digital safety. (Paras 11-16)

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the directors of the company accused of fraudulently obtaining bulk SIM cards and facilitating cyber-crime.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in cases involving fraudulent procurement of telecom infrastructure used for cyber-crime, the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail should not be extended when the investigation is ongoing, the applicants have admitted to false end-user lists, and custodial interrogation is needed to uncover the modus operandi and wider conspiracy. (Para 18)

Result: Both bail applications dismissed. Pending applications disposed of. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 1394/2026 in BAIL APPLN. 164/2026

CRL.M.A. 1400-01/2026 in BAIL APPLN. 166/2026

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications stand disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 164/2026, CRL.M.A. 1393/2026 & CRL.M.A. 1420/2026

BAIL APPLN. 166/2026 & CRL. M.A. 1399/2026

3. By way of the present bail applications, applicants seek grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. RC2212025E0016, registered at Police Station EO-III Delhi, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter ‘BNS’) and Sections 43/66B/66C/66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereafter ‘IT Act’).

4. Brief facts of the case are that a source information was received by the investigating agency, to the effect that certain private entities, including M/s Lord Mahavira Services India Pvt. Ltd. (LMSIPL), had obtained bulk mobile SIM connections from TelecomService Providers in violation of the guidelines issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), and that such SIM cards were thereafter misused for cyber-crime and fraudulent activities. It was revealed that during the years 2024–2025, LMSIPL had obtained 7,721 SIM connections from Vodafone Idea Ltd., which were allegedly used for making fraudulent calls by impersonating officials of TRAI, law-enforcement agencies and other service providers, thereby cheating unsuspecting members of the public. Citizen feedback received through the Chakshu module of the Sanchar Saathi Portal recorded 210 complaints involving 189 mobile numbers linked to LMSIPL. In addition, financial fraud complaints involving a total loss of nearly ₹1 lakh, connected with six mobile numbers, were registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP). Although DoT had directed re-verification of these bulk connections, Vodafone Idea Ltd. reported that 5,884 out of 5,886 flagged numbers were found compliant, which appeared unusual in light of the complaints received.resources, amounting to 20,986 mobile connections from Vodafone Idea Ltd. between 2020 and 2025, by using deceitful means. These connections were obtained by furnishing identity documents of individuals projected as employees and end-users, including issuance of multiple SIM cards in the name of single subscribers. Records showed instances where 90 connections were issued for the end use of only 10 persons, and about 1,000 numbers were allotted for merely 143 persons on the basis of declarations made by Director Amardeep Sharma. CDR analysis of the said numbers indicated patterns consistent with SIM-box usage, as some numbers were found to have operated across 203 to 387 IMEIs and had generated one-second automated calls, pointing towards IMEI tampering, machine-to-machine communication and automated calling, all of which are prohibited under DoT guidelines dated 20.05.2024. During verification of NCRP complaints relating to certain mobile numbers through the Samanvaya Portal, it was found that each of the said numbers was linked to complaints of cyber-crime by victims. The preliminary enquiry revealed that both Directors of LMSIPL had obtained bulk SIM cards by providing false end-user lists, and that CDRs showed their usage around the registered address of the company in Delhi and an office premises in Noida. The pattern of IMEI usage suggested that the SIMs were being used in SIM boxes or automated systems capable of masking or switching IMEIs for illegal VoIP termination or mass messaging. It was also found that some of the mobile numbers issued to LMSIPL were directly involved in cyber-crime, as reflected from NCRP complaints. Theenquiry further indicated that unknown officials, distributors or dealers of Vodafone Idea Ltd. may have knowingly facilitated such activations despite clear procedural violations.

5. On the basis of the said information, a Preliminary Enquiry bearing No. PE2212025E0003 was registered. During the enqu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHISwarna Kanta Sharma, JAMARDEEP SHARMA – AppellantVersusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – RespondentBAIL APPLN.-164/2026

The court held that anticipatory bail should be denied when there is prima facie evidence of fraudulent procurement of SIM cards used for cyber-crime, investigation is nascent, and custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the conspiracy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarna Kanta Sharma, J
AMARDEEP SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-164/2026