DELHI HIGH COURT ALLOWS PETITIONER’S BAIL APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS LITTLE OR NO SCOPE OF TAMPERING OF EVIDENCE

In a recent case of State Government of NCT Delhi vs Mukesh Kumar Singh, Bail Application 3116/2022, Hon’ble Justice Amit Sharma of the High Court of Delhi, passed a Judgment dated 06.03.2023 and allowed the Bail Application filed by the Petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail) on the ground that the necessary evidence was already in the possession of the Police and the possibility of tampering of evidence and influencing of witnesses by the Petitioner, could not be presumed at the particular stage.

Facts of the Case

1. In the present case, a Complaint dated 23.02.2022 was filed by one, Ms. Manaswi, wherein it was stated that she had taken a loan of amount Rs 4660/- (Loan) from a Mobile App called ‘Agile Loan’. The due date for making the payment of the Loan amount was on 28.02.2022, however, she received a threatening call one day before i.e. on 27.02.2022 asking for extra payment of money other than what was advanced to her. She was then made to pay a total of Rs. 8000/- instead of the actual due amount, via UPI transaction to an account holder of YES Bank. Since then, she had been receiving abusive phone calls from unknown persons who threaten her that they would share her personal information to others.
2. Based on the said Complaint, an FIR No. 60/2022 was registered against the said Mobile App, at PS Special Cell, New Delhi for committing offences under Sections 419 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) (Punishment for cheating by personation) / 420 IPC (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) / 354-A IPC (Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment) / 384 IPC (Punishment for extortion) / 385 IPC (Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion) / 509 IPC (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) / 120B IPC (Punishment of criminal conspiracy).
3. Upon conducting a technical enquiry, the Police found that several other complaints were registered against the said App on the National Cyber Reporting Portal. An investigation at the National Cyber Forensic Laboratory (NCFL) revealed that the said Mobile Application was capable of revealing crucial user information to remote servers without their knowledge. It was also revealed that the initial Loan amount borrowed by the Complainant was credited to her IDFC Bank from an ICICI Bank account in the name of M/s PAYTAME INC. However, upon enquiry, no firm with the above name was registered or found.
4. Upon conducting a financial enquiry, the Police found that the YES Bank Account to which the Complainant transferred Rs 8000/- was opened by M/s Shiv Shankar Enterprises, in Uttar Pradesh, whose Proprietor is one, Mukesh Kumar Singh. A total amount of Rs 35,92,66,662.54/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Crores Ninety-Two Lakhs Sixty-Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-Two and Fifty-Four Paise) was found to be credited to the said YES Bank Account from the date of its opening till March 2022.
5. Further, several attempts were earlier made to take him into custody but he was not found at the registered office location. Thereafter, on 13.07.2022, upon receiving secret information, a raid was conducted and Mukesh Kumar, the Petitioner herein, was arrested. He admitted to being involved in the current case and that he has been in judicial custody since 15.03.2022.
6. Upon completion of the investigation, a Charge-Sheet was filed against Mukesh Kumar, the Petitioner before the Ld. Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi (Trial Court).
7. According to the Prosecution, the Petitioner helped Chinese Nationals in developing the Mobile App to facilitate money transfers with other banks. He stated that the Petitioner maintained several bank accounts on fictitious names to help facilitate the transfers.
8. The Defense argued that the current case was regarding a Loan taken through the Mobile App and that the Petitioner was not connected to the said case, and that the case was connected to some Chinese National. The Petitioner also submitted that he was unfortunately involved with one Rahul Raj, who required a bank account for loan transfers (with respect to the App) from debtors and that the Petitioner, without knowing the credibility of these transfers, became a part of it. Further, when he realized the scam and tried to speak about the same to Rahul Raj, he was nowhere to be found over calls or in person. After reporting the said scam to the Cyber Cell, the Petitioner came to know that Rahul Raj passed away by drowning in Rishikesh.
   The Petitioner further claimed to have not known the Complainant and owing to absence of evidence against him in the current case, the Petitioner applied for Bail under Bail Application 3116 / 2022 in the High Court of Delhi.

High Court Observations and Analysis:

The Hon’ble High Court observed that all the evidence was primarily documentary in nature and already in possession of the Investigation Officer (IO), hence, there was little to no possibility of any tampering of evidence from the Petitioner’s end, which would influence the witnesses at this stage of the case. Therefore, holding the Petitioner in custody for the sole reason of any further investigation was futile.

The High Court further recalled the Apex Court Judgment in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 where it was observed that the object of granting bail was neither punitive nor preventive and that deprivation of liberty should be considered a punishment, unless it is required to secure the presence of the accused during trial, when called upon.

Conclusion:

Thus, based on the aforesaid observations, the Hon’ble High Court passed a Judgment dated 06-03-2023 and allowed the Petitioner’s Bail Application subject to terms and conditions of furnishing necessary bonds, etc to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Shalini Donthi

Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer