Rise In Tech-Driven Crimes Makes Investigations Arduous: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail In ₹1.75 Crore Digital Fraud Case
The complainant was allegedly defrauded by a group of individuals who impersonated police officers and used fake judicial documents to extort a sum of ₹1.75 crore.
Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court emphasized the increasing misuse of technology by criminals to avoid detection and prosecution while rejecting an application for anticipatory bail in a case involving serious allegations of cheating and digital fraud.
The case in question involves offences under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860—specifically Sections 419 (impersonation), 420 (cheating), 467, 468, and 471 (related to forgery), 170 (impersonating a public servant), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (common intention). Additionally, charges have been brought under Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which deal with identity theft and cheating by impersonation using computer resources.
A Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan remarked, “Such crimes are on the rise and the same tend to be significantly harder to crack due to the boon of technology that is effectively misused by crooks to wreak havoc and evade the law enforcement. The task of the Investigating Agency seems arduous and they need to be given a fair play in the joints to investigate the matter in the manner they deem appropriate.”
Background
According to the First Information Report (FIR), the complainant was allegedly defrauded by a group of individuals who impersonated police officers and used fake judicial documents to extort a sum of ₹1.75 crore (₹1,75,00,000) from him. The fraudsters reportedly convinced the complainant that a SIM card had been illegally procured using his Aadhaar number and was used for sending inappropriate messages. He was also falsely told that he had links with Naresh Goyal, the owner of Jet Airways, who is under investigation for money laundering.
The accused allegedly used a series of tactics to intimidate and mislead the complainant. This included video calls made by individuals dressed in police uniforms claiming to be from Tilak Nagar Police Station. In fact, a mock police station setup was shown to the complainant to lend credibility to the false narrative.
Furthermore, the complainant was sent forged documents allegedly from the Supreme Court of India and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He was coerced into sharing personal information, including his identification details, photograph, and bank account information. Eventually, he was manipulated into transferring all his funds to bank accounts controlled by the fraudsters.
Finding
While dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, the High Court made it clear that the investigation was still at an early stage and required thorough inquiry. It reiterated the principle that the legal standards for granting pre-arrest bail differ significantly from those applied when considering regular bail after arrest.
The Court noted, “Considering the allegations against the applicant, it cannot be held at this stage that the investigation is being carried out with the intention to injure or humiliate the applicant. Prima facie, the facts do not indicate false implication of the applicant. The present application is accordingly dismissed.”
In light of these considerations, the Court found no merit in the bail application and accordingly dismissed it.
Cause Title: Mohit v. State of NCT of Delhi
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Ashutosh Singh, Anubhav Singh & Bhupender Singh
Respondent: Advocate Naresh Kumar Chahar