Delhi High Court denies bail to accused in alleged overseas-job fraud involving over 150 victims and more than ₹1 crore

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in proceedings arising from FIR No. 178/2022, registered for alleged cheating and related offences under Sections 406, 420, 409, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and offences under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The prosecution alleged that companies offering overseas employment induced job seekers to pay money and submit passports, then misappropriated the funds; the investigation attributed to the applicant an active role and a direct benefit from the alleged fraud.

The applicant disputed being an owner or director, relying on his claimed status as an employee and on the absence of his signature on a seizure memo; he also relied on his period in custody, the anticipated length of trial, and bail granted to co-accused persons.

The chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet had been filed, and the case was at the stage of arguments on charge. The applicant had been in custody since 16 December 2022; earlier bail applications had been dismissed by the Trial Court and the High Court.

Whether the applicant had established a basis for regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the alleged fraud, his attributed role, and the recovery of weapons.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial custody, the anticipated duration of trial, or parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail.

The application was considered under Section 483 BNSS, which provides the procedural basis invoked for seeking regular bail.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 406, 420, 409, 468 and 120B IPC and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.

The Court’s stated assessment focused on the gravity and magnitude of the alleged fraud, the applicant’s alleged role and benefit, and the recovery of illegal weapons; it did not cite a separate precedent or set out a further general bail test in the judgment.

The Court relied on the prosecution’s material indicating that the applicant was actively involved in the alleged recruitment operation, was a direct beneficiary of funds exceeding ₹1 crore obtained from more than 150 victims, and had executed the rent agreement for the premises from which one company operated.

It also noted the recovery of a country-made pistol and live cartridges from the applicant and an FSL report confirming the illegal nature of the weapons.

These circumstances led the Court to find that the seriousness and scale of the alleged offences weighed against bail.

The Court distinguished the co-accused’s case, noting that he had been an office boy or peon without a designated position, whereas the applicant was alleged to have played an active role and directly benefited from the proceeds.

The applicant’s custody, anticipated trial duration, and parity submissions did not alter that assessment.

It dismissed the bail application and the pending accompanying application, clarifying that its observations were confined to the bail determination and would not affect the merits of the case.