Delhi HC Grants Bail To Two Accused In Alleged US Microsoft Tech-Support Scam After About 4 Months In Custody

The petitions arose from an FIR alleging that an illegal call centre defrauded US citizens by impersonating Microsoft technical-support staff and obtaining payment through gift cards, vouchers and cryptocurrency.

The police seized electronic devices and related materials, and filed a chargesheet; charges had not been framed and no witnesses had been examined.

Two applicants—Pawan Gupta, allegedly a manager/IT head, and Sayam Sahni, allegedly a provider of technical infrastructure—had been in custody for approximately four and four-and-a-half months respectively.

The remaining applicant, Jaspreet Singh, had applied for anticipatory bail but was arrested during the proceedings.

The other arrested co-accused were on bail.

Section 482 BNSS provides for anticipatory bail; once an accused is arrested in relation to the offence, that remedy ceases to apply and the accused must seek regular bail (*Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani*)

For offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, Section 35(1)(b) BNSS permits arrest only where its statutory requirements are met, including recorded reasons and necessity; otherwise, notice under Section 35(3) is the rule, and arrest under Section 35(6) is an exception requiring strict objective necessity (*Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI*)

The Court also applied the principles that bail should not be withheld as punishment and that prolonged pre-trial detention may violate the right to liberty under Article 21 (*Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement*); that seriousness of the allegations alone is not determinative (*Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P.*); and that risks of tampering or flight may be addressed by conditions (*Rudra Kumar Verma v. State of NCT of Delhi*)

The Court referred to *Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of Delhi)* for the procedure governing service of a notice of appearance

Because Jaspreet Singh had been arrested, the Court held that his anticipatory-bail application had become infructuous, without expressing any view on its merits.

As to the other applicants, the materials before the Court did not disclose the reasons for their arrests required by Section 35 BNSS, and the record did not establish service of the notice on Sayam Sahni personally.

The Court treated the absence of demonstrated compliance as a relevant bail consideration, while expressly declining to make a final finding on statutory compliance.

It also considered that the chargesheet had been filed and electronic evidence seized; no victim statement or complainant was on record; the alleged offences carried maximum sentences of seven years and were triable by a Magistrate; the other arrested co-accused were on bail; and trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

Against those circumstances, continued detention was not justified, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations.

It allowed Pawan Gupta’s and Sayam Sahni’s regular-bail applications and directed their release on a personal bond of ₹50,000 each with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions including restrictions on travel, surrender of passports, address and contact-information requirements, cooperation with the investigation, court attendance, and non-interference with witnesses or evidence.