Full Judgment Text
2021:DHC:4133
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 13 DECEMBER, 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ BAIL APPLN. 2753/2021
WARIS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Nikunj Verma, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Advocate
for the complainant
+ BAIL APPLN. 2831/2021
MANVENDRA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Nikunj Verma, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Advocate
for the complainant
+ BAIL APPLN. 3877/2021
SAJID ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Mohd Rais Farooqui, Advocate
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Advocate
for the complainant
BAIL APPLN. 2831/2021etc. Page 1 of 9
2021:DHC:4133
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. BAIL APPLN. 2831/2021 has been filed for grant of regular bail in
FIR No. 39/2021 dated 07.02.2021 registered at Police Station Civil Lines
for offences under Section 420 IPC.
2. BAIL APPLN. 2753/2021 has been filed for grant of regular bail in
FIR No. 39/2021 dated 07.02.2021 registered at Police Station Civil Lines
for offences under Section 420 IPC.
3. BAIL APPLN. 3877/2021 has been filed for grant of regular bail in
FIR No. 39/2021 dated 07.02.2021 registered at Police Station Civil Lines
for offences under Section 420 IPC.
4. The facts in brief leading to the instant petitions are as follows:-
i. The complainant states that she uploaded certain articles up for
sale on OLX website. In response to her offer of sale, she got a
call from mobile No.8099320332 by one Raghuvendra Singh,
who offered Rs.21,000/- for the said items, to which the
complainant agreed and the transaction was to be done through
online payment mode. A dummy transaction of Rs.21/- was
agreed done by Raghuvendra to verify the correctness of the
transaction.
ii. It is stated that Raghavendra Singh resisted to do a complete
transaction through internet banking and insisted to make
transactions in tranches on Paytm, Google Pay, HDFC and SBI.
It is stated that the complainant transferred a total of
Rs.34,000/-. After which, the complainant was not able to
BAIL APPLN. 2831/2021etc. Page 2 of 9
2021:DHC:4133
contact the said Raghavendra Singh after calling multiple times
and suspected that she had been defrauded by the said person.
iii. Based on this information, FIR No.39/2021 dated 07.02.2021
registered at Police Station Civil Lines for offences under
Section 420 IPC. SI Kishan Chand and SI Rohit, in charge of
Cyber Crime Cell, North District, Maurice Nagar were assigned
the case and made efforts to understand the modus operandi and
to nab the accused persons.
5. After preliminary enquiries, one Kapil Kumar Rajoria, a student of
th
12 Standard stated that he made friends with petitioner Manvendra Singh,
who allegedly lured him with a sum Rs.1,000/- if he owned a bank account
and operated a phone number under a fictitious name and address. It is
stated that Kapil Kumar Rajoria opened a bank account accordingly and the
ATM card cheque book was with Manvendra Singh.
i. It is stated that Kapil Kumar Rajoria was arrested from
Anandpuri, Mathura, U.P. and was remanded to Police custody
for two days. The involvement of other accused was revealed to
the Police.
ii. Based on revelations, Petitioner/Sajid was interrogated, he
stated that he is a taxi driver and had made friends with
Petitioner/Waris, who allegedly enticed him to open a fake bank
account with a sum Rs.2,000/- if he owned a bank account and
operated a phone number under a fictitious name and address.
Accordingly, Sajid opened numerous bank accounts with
HDFC bank, ICICI bank, IDBI bank, IPO Bank, Fincare Small
Finance Bank. Sajid further allegedly disclosed that before
BAIL APPLN. 2831/2021etc. Page 3 of 9
2021:DHC:4133
depositing money in the abovementioned accounts, Waris
would call him and inform him. On checking the statements of
these bank accounts, it was noticed that on 07.02.2021 a
payment of Rs.20,000/- was deposited by Waris into Sajid’s
Indian Post Payments Bank account. Petitioner/Sajid was
arrested on 11.02.2021.
iii. Further joint enquiries by the Cyber Cell and the Police, got
them in contact with the Petitioner/Manvendra Singh, who
stated that he was preparing for a government job and had made
friends with Petitioner/Waris who allegedly lured him to
commit online frauds and told him that online bank accounts
with fictitious addresses had already been opened and the stage
was set to dupe people without any detection. Petitioner/Waris
allegedly told him that he would be paid Rs.5,000/- per
transaction for each account. Petitioner/Manvendra Singh was
arrested on 11.02.2021.
iv. After this, on 13.02.2021, the three accused persons, namely,
Kapil Kumar Rajoria, Sajid, and Manvendra Singh were
produced before the learned Magistrate, who remanded them to
14 days’ judicial custody.
v. During the custodial interrogation of the accused/Waris, he
allegedly disclosed that he was working as a private school
teacher and during this time he was introduced to
accused/Moveen, R/o Village-Bheelamka, Tehsil-Deeg,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan; who lured him to commit online frauds
and asked him to open bank accounts under false identities and
BAIL APPLN. 2831/2021etc. Page 4 of 9
2021:DHC:4133
addresses. He allegedly disclosed that he worked him for about
six months and used to get a 20 per cent profit of the defrauded
amounts. Petitioner/Moveen arrested on 16.02.2021.
vi. During investigation, details of the bank accounts which were
being operated by the accused/petitioners herein were extracted
and the notices under Section 91 CrPC were issued to bank
officials to furnish statements of these fictitious accounts.
vii. The mobile numbers used by the accused/petitioners were
inquired into and cellular companies were contacted to submit
the Call Detail Records of the petitioners. The CDRs reveal that
the petitioners were in continuous communication with each
other.
6. Investigation has been completed and Chargesheet was filed on
15.03.2021. In the chargesheet, Section 467, 468, 471, 201, 34 IPC and
Section 66D of the Information & Technology Act, 2000 were added.
7. The bail applications of the petitioners, Sajid and Manvendra were
dismissed vide a common order dated 05.07.2021 passed by the learned
Trial Court stating that the petitioners were accused of embezzlement and
used clever devices to cheat many innocent persons on the internet, the
transactions of which were still being investigated by the Cyber Cell/IT
Department and this was the first time that they were caught.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record. Mr.Nikunj Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Waris and
Manvendra. Mr. Mohd. Rais Farooqui, learned for the petitioner, Sajid.
Mr.Amit Chadha, learned APP for the State and Mr.Vikas Pahwa, learned
Senior Advocate appeared for the complainant.
BAIL APPLN. 2831/2021etc. Page 5 of 9
2021:DHC:4133
9. Learned counsels for the petitioners contended that the chargesheet
and the supplementary chargesheet both stand filed. The petitioners have
been in custody for 10 months, they contend that the nature of evidence
against the petitioner is documentary in nature which would not require the
custodial presence of the petitioner. It is contended that this is the offence
has been committed first time by the petitioners and they do not have any
criminal antecedents. They submit that the petitioners are although are adults
but are in the prime of their youths and have a good future ahead, being
incarcerated as undertrials would deprive them of being gainfully employed.
It was submitted that there is no substantial evidence against the petitioners
apart from the disclosure statements of each other. It was lastly submitted
that there are over 15 witnesses who are slated to be examined in the trial
and given the ongoing pandemic situation the trial may not commence any
time soon. Therefore, the petitioners should be released on bail.
10. Per contra, Mr. Amit Chadha, learned APP vehemently opposes the
bail applications of the petitioners stating that the acts of which the accused
have been charged with was executed in a very organized way. He submits
that the petitioners created bank accounts giving false details in order to not
get caught and purchased SIM cards in fictitious names which were used to
defraud and cheat gullible people who sold and purchased goods from the
internet. It is further submitted by him that that SIM cards were obtained by
petitioners by giving fake IDs and further the charge of forgery was also
made out against them. He submitted that the charge of forgery prescribe a
punishment of 10 years extending upto life imprisonment, and, therefore,
bail ought not to granted to the petitioners at this stage.
BAIL APPLN. 2831/2021etc. Page 6 of 9
2021:DHC:4133
11. Mr. Amit Chadha, learned APP submitted that the Call Detail Records
showed that the petitioners were in touch with each other frequently and that
there were many bank transactions amongst the petitioners that were
observed during investigation. He fairly conceded that the petitioners did not
have any criminal antecedents but contended that these persons had not just
defrauded the present complainant but many other persons and the same was
being investigated into by the authorities. He submitted that if the petitioners
are released on bail, they are likely to tamper with evidence and will
abscond from the trial. He states that on seeing the bank statements, so far
the petitioners have cheated people of a total sum of Rs.7,00,000/-.
12. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Advocate appeared on behalf of the
complainant adopted the submissions made by the learned APP. He
additionally submitted that this type of an online fraud has become
widespread in the North of India whereby many innocent people have been
cheated. He submitted that this Court should not exercise its discretion in
granting bail to the accused as it would send a deterrent message to other
persons engaging in similar activities. Mr. Pahwa expressed a concern that
since the petitioners are residing at different places, there is a likelihood of
their fleeing from justice.
13. Heard.
14. The parameters to considered for grant of bail as has been consistently
enunciated by the Apex Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh
& Ors., 2002 (3) SCC 598 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee &
Anr. 2010 (14) SCC 496 are as follows:-
a) Nature and gravity of charge;
b) Severity of the punishment in case of conviction;
BAIL APPLN. 2831/2021etc. Page 7 of 9
2021:DHC:4133
c) Apprehension of witnesses being tampered with
d) Whether there is a prima facie ground to believe that the
accused committed that offence;
e) Character, behavior, position of the accused and standing of the
accused;
f) Danger of Justice being subverted if accused is released on bail;
15. The Chargesheet has been filed. The supplementary Chargesheet has
also been filed. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for 10 months.
This Court is aware that this kind of online cheating and fraud has become
rampant in most parts of the country. However, this Court cannot remiss in
performing its duty, that is to uphold liberty subject to other relevant
considerations. Since the investigation has been completed and the
chargesheet has been filed before the learned Trial Court and taking into
account the evidence are primarily documentary in nature, this Court,
therefore, is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by further
keeping the petitioners in custody. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant
regular bail to the petitioners on the following conditions:-
i. The petitioners Manvendra Singh, Waris and Sajid shall furnish
a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the
like amount, one of them being a relative to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court.
ii. The petitioner, Manvendra is the resident of Village- Mudseras,
Govardhan, Mathura, Police Station Govardhan.
iii. The petitioner, Waris is the resident of Village-Daulatpur,
Govardhan, Mathura, Police Station Govardhan.
BAIL APPLN. 2831/2021etc. Page 8 of 9
2021:DHC:4133
iv. The petitioner, Sajid is the resident of Village-Singar, Nuh,
Haryana, Police Station Bichhor.
v. The petitioners are directed to report to the concerned Police
Station every Monday and Friday, during the period they are
out on bail.
vi. The petitioners are directed not to tamper with any evidence or
influence the witnesses directly or indirectly.
vii. The petitioners are warned not to indulge in the same activities
hereafter.
viii. The petitioners shall give all their mobile numbers to the
investigating officer and shall keep them operational at all
times.
16. The petitions are disposed of with the above observations along with
the pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
DECEMBER 13, 2021
hsk
BAIL APPLN. 2831/2021etc. Page 9 of 9