2021 (6) TMI 1175 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - Sections 419/420/120-B/34 IPC and Section 66-C/66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 - it is contended that the petitioner is the king pin of the fake centre being run by virtue of which several victims in USA were cheated by way of VOIP calls - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly, the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable upto 7 years imprisonment, however the magnitude of offence is enormous. In Arnesh Kumar 2014 (7) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, Supreme Court dealt with Section 41 Cr.P.C. and emphasising on Section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C. it was observed that when a person is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for less than 7 years or which may extend to 7 years with or without fine, not only has the Police officer to be satisfied that the accused has committed the said offence, but he is also required to be satisfied that the arrest of the accused is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence, or for proper investigation of the offence or to prevent such person from exploiting the evidence of the offence to disappear or tamper such evidence in any manner or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, or unless such person is arrested his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the Police Officer shall record his reasons in writing while making such arrest. The law does not mandate a blanket ban on arrest of accused against whom there is a reasonable suspicion of commission of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than 7 years or which may extend to 7 years but requires that the Police officer should be satisfied about the necessity of arrest on the conditions as noted in the sub-clauses (a) to (e) and should record reasons for the same. Even the High Powered Committee of this Court constituted under the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued direction to scrupulously follow the directions in the decision in Arnesh Kumar. The petitioner has vehemently relied on the fact that the petitioner is working with M/s. Deans Infratech Pvt. Ltd. with its offices at Delhi and Mumbai and the company is engaged in the road construction business. Though this fact has been verified form the Managing Director of the company who stated that the petitioner was appointed in his company on 8th September, 2017 as Business Development Manager and his work profile was to develop new business opportunities throughout India without being physically based in any particular office location, however, the petitioner's employment as Business Development Manager with M/s. Deans Infratech Pvt. Ltd. does not lead to an inference that the petitioner is not running a centre from which 15 employees and two other co-accused have already been arrested - The prescription dated 23rd May, 2021 suggests tenderness in L-5 region and X-Ray and MRI of lumbar spine has been prescribed which reports have not been placed on record. The other ailments relied upon are relating to the eye, which prescription date back to the year 2013 and the recent prescription is of 17th February, 2020 when two eye-drops were prescribed. Thus, even on the medical condition this Court finds that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is suffering from any co-morbidity which is likely to affect him due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner - Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Anticipatory bail in a case involving Sections 419/420/120-B/34 IPC and Section 66-C/66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and being falsely implicated due to working for a legitimate business. The petitioner argued that disclosure statements of co-accused, the main evidence against him, are inadmissible. The petitioner's health conditions and the COVID-19 situation were also cited as reasons for bail.

The State contended that the petitioner was the key figure in a fraudulent call center operation that cheated US victims. The gravity of the offence, involvement in a deep conspiracy, and the need for further investigation were highlighted to oppose anticipatory bail.

The FIR was based on information about a cybercriminal gang cheating US victims through a fake call center. The accused used various tactics to deceive victims and extract money. Evidence recovered included computers, scripts, and communication details.

Investigation revealed a planned conspiracy involving the petitioner and others to cheat US victims, with the petitioner allegedly orchestrating the operation. The State emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to trace the money trail and unearth further details of the crime.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the necessity of arrest under Section 41 Cr.P.C., and the ongoing investigation stage. Prima facie evidence linking the petitioner to the crime and the need to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy were crucial factors in denying anticipatory bail.

The petitioner's employment details and medical conditions were examined, but they did not sway the court's decision. Lack of conclusive evidence of severe health issues related to COVID-19 and the petitioner's role in the fraudulent operation led to the dismissal of the petition for anticipatory bail.