Alleged Fake Amazon Call-Centre Accused Get Bail After Bombay HC Finds Magistrate Took No Cognizance Or Issued Remand Warrants

The Petitioners were arrested in connection with alleged cyber-fraud operations at an illegal call centre and remained in judicial custody.

The charge-sheet, filed before the Special Judge for CBI cases, did not charge any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”).

The Special Judge later held that he was not empowered to take cognizance and transferred the case to the JMFC, Igatpuri, for cognizance or trial in accordance with law.

The JMFC’s subsequent entries recorded hearing dates and the Petitioners’ production by video conference, but the record disclosed neither an order taking cognizance nor warrants or directions remanding them to custody.

The Petitioners sought release on the ground that their continued detention was unauthorized

1. Whether the Special Judge appointed under the PC Act had jurisdiction to take cognizance of, or continue remanding the Petitioners in, a case where the charge-sheet alleged no PC Act offence.

2. Whether the JMFC’s subsequent proceedings established that cognizance had been taken and authorized continued detention, despite the absence of a specific remand warrant or direction.

3. Whether the Petitioners’ continued detention was illegal and warranted their release.

Sections 3 and 4 of the PC Act empower a Special Judge to try PC Act offences and other offences chargeable at the same trial; the Special Judge’s authority to try non-PC Act offences depends on a PC Act offence being tried in the case (*State through CBI v. Jitender Kumar Singh*, paras. 21–22, 33).

Cognizance is the court’s conscious judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings; it need not take a prescribed formal shape, but must be discernible from the court’s judicial action (*S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd.*, paras. 28, 40–43).

Under Section 346(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), a court may remand an accused in custody while adjourning an inquiry or trial, but must do so by warrant; the provision operates after cognizance or commencement of trial.

The judgment also considered Section 361 BNSS in relation to transfer of a case and Sections 207 and 193(9) BNSS in addressing the parties’ arguments about cognizance and further investigation.

The charge-sheet contained no PC Act offence, and no accused was a public servant. The Special Judge therefore lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case; the Judge’s own transfer order recognized that the JMFC had to take cognizance in accordance with law.

Although the Special Judge had earlier supplied charge-sheet copies, that step could not establish valid cognizance by a court lacking jurisdiction. Before the JMFC, the case was adjourned from time to time, but the record disclosed no judicial act showing cognizance with a view to initiating proceedings. Orders rejecting bail or permitting further investigation did not satisfy that requirement. Nor did the JMFC issue a warrant or direct the jail authorities to continue custody.

The Petitioners’ detention was consequently unsupported by authorization from a competent court

It directed their release on bail on PR bonds of ₹1 lakh each, with one or two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions including surrender of passports, weekly reporting to the investigating agency, attendance at trial, and restrictions on travel and interference with witnesses.

The investigating agency remained at liberty to rearrest them in accordance with law if necessary