Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005594

$~5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

BAIL APPLN. 3250/2021

ROHIT KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Raj

Karan Sharma, Mr. Aditya Kumar

Yadav, Ms. Anusha Panwar, Mr.

Prateek Singh and Mr. Gaurav

Chaudhary, Advs.

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Amit Sahni, APP for the State

with SI

%

Date of Decision: 7^th December, 2022

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)

BAIL APPLN. 3250/2021

1.

Present application has been moved under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for

grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 419/2021 lodged on 29^th July,

2021 at PS Hari Nagar under Sections 419/420/120B/34 IPC read with

Section 66C/66(D) I.T. Act, 2000.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the accused persons

have already been admitted to bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner

further submits that in fact the petitioner is an actor and producer in the

bollywood and has produced certain successful movies. It has been

Digitally Signed By:RAJ

BALA

Signing Date:16.12.2022

15:40:21

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005594

submitted that that the accused has been falsely implicated in the

present case as his brother Sanjeev Kumar was arrested in this case.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused Sanjeev Kumar

has already been granted bail by the learned MM/ Tis Hazari Courts,

vide order dated 12^th August, 2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner

further submits that the main allegation against present petitioner is that

his brother Sanjeev Kumar who is also director in the company of the

petitioner i.e. “Rangrezaa Flims” had deposited some amount. Learned

counsel submits that mere deposit of amount by accused Sanjeev

Kumar cannot be taken as incriminating material against the present

application. Learned counsel submits has the petitioner has not even

been named in the FIR. It has also been submitted that the petitioner

has regularly joined the investigation as and when called by the IO.

4.

Learned APP for the State on the instructions of the IO states that it is a

serious case involving cyber fraud. Learned counsel submits that the

petitioner is one of the main conspirators of the present cheating Scam

Call Centre. As per the disclosure statement of co-accused, the present

petitioner is one of the two main gang kingpins. It has further been

stated that source of procuring data of US resident victims is yet to be

unearthed.

5.

Learned APP further states that additionally some amount has been

deposited by the co-accused Sanjeev Kumar in the company Rangrezza

Films & Rangrezza Hospitality in which the present petitioner is one

of the director.

Digitally Signed By:RAJ

BALA

Signing Date:16.12.2022

15:40:21

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005594

6.

Learned APP further states that computers seized from the call centre

have been sent to the FSL and report is yet to come. IO states that

there is no need of custodial investigation.

7.

In the present case, admittedly, the co-accused have already been

admitted to bail. The petitioner had joined the investigation as and

when directed by the IO. IO has also stated the custodial investigation

of the accused is not required. The report from the FSL is yet to come.

8.

It is relevant to note that the petitioner has not misused the interim

protection granted to him by this court.

9.

It is also a settled proposition that keeping the person in custody during

the investigation cannot be used as a punitive measure. It is a settled

proposition that the basic rule of criminal jurisprudence is bail and not

jail. This court and the Supreme Court has said this time and again that

the courts must enforce this principle in practice. It has to be borne in

mind that denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liber