JUDGMENT

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. The present application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 30/2023 under Sections 419/420 IPC registered at Police Station Cyber Police Station, Rohini, Delhi.

2. FIR No. 30/2023 was registered at PS Cyber, Rohini, on the complaint of Pradeep Kumar Behera, who alleged being defrauded of Rs. 17,95,000/- in an online part-time job scam. The complainant was induced via WhatsApp and Telegram to perform investment-based tasks and transferred money from his Canara, SBI, and Federal Bank

accounts, including Rs. 9,00,000/- to a Yes Bank account held by M/s Sanofi Enterprises. The funds were subsequently traced to ICICI Bank (M/s S.S. Fashion), then Axis Bank (Rapipay Fintech Pvt. Ltd.), and finally credited through agent Feroz Ibrahim Shaikh, whose IP logs were linked to the Applicant. Investigation further revealed that the Applicant was a Rapipay agent, had several complaints against his virtual account, and was connected to co-accused Mohammed FauzanHajatay, his brother-in-law, who was involved in fund collection. IP addresses linked to Feroz’s Rapipay ID also matched the travel itinerary of the Applicant’s other brother-in-law, Rehan, suggesting coordinated activity.

3. According to the Applicant’s counsel, on 24.01.2025, officers from Cyber PS, Rohini, including IO SI Rahul Malik, visited the Applicant’s Pune residence and served a Section 41A Cr.P.C notice to his father, summoning the Applicant for investigation on 10.02.2025. The Applicant later learnt from mutual contacts that co-accused Feroz Ibrahim Shaikh had been subjected to police brutality and denied a copy of his 41A notice, prompting the Applicant to file Anticipatory Bail Application No. 215/2025. Although the IO’s status report dated 06.02.2025 linked the Applicant to the case, it failed to establish his role in the fraud, or any financial benefit derived therefrom. The Applicant complied with the summons, joined the investigation on 10.02.2025, and submitted written clarifications denying involvement, which the IO ignored while falsely alleging non-cooperation. Following the rejection of his bail on 13.02.2025, the Applicant filed a

criminal complaint against Rapipay Fintech Pvt. Ltd. for misusing his virtual account and approached the RBI with a grievance against the said company.

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant has submitted that prosecution case suffers from inconsistencies, contradictions, and lacks specific evidence linking the Petitioner to the alleged offence, with the status reports shifting the fraud amount and allegations without justification. It is argued that vague references to other pending complaints and inflated figures cannot be grounds for denial of bail, especially when the complaints are neither part of the present FIR nor supported by Section 120-B IPC to form a common conspiracy. Reliance has been placed upon Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that frivolity in prosecution must be considered, and arrest must follow proper comprehension of the accused’s exact role. Furthermore, in State of Kerala v. Mahesh (2021) 14 SCC 86, the Supreme Court reiterated the need for courts to weigh all relevant factors including evidence and extent of involvement before deciding bail applications. The counsel also relied upon Ashish Mittal v. SFIO 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2484, wherein it was inter alia held that mere recital of allegations by the prosecution is insufficient—there must be cogent material linking the accused to the offence.

5. It is further submitted that the present case falls within the framework of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, as

the offences are punishable up to seven years and there is no demonstrable need for custodial interrogation. The prosecution’s allegation of non-cooperation is countered by citing Santosh v. State of Maharashtra (2017) 9 SCC 714 and Pankaj Bansal v. Union of Indi