While dismissing the anticipatory bail plea of an accused, the Delhi High Court has observed that anticipatory bail cannot be granted for it to be used as a shield.

The bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held thus “The order of bail in anticipation of arrest cannot be granted for it to be used as a shield.”

In this case, a complaint was registered on a secret information that a fake call centre is involved in large scale cyber cheating with US citizens on the pretext of misuse of Social Society Number (SSN) of the citizens of United States.

Upon a raid on the call centre a total number of 54 accused were apprehended from the call centre and a large number of Computer system, Sever, Routers, Switches and headphones alongwith other incriminating evidence were also seized from the premises.

It was alleged by the accused persons that the owner of the call centre is the bail applicant and he is actively involved in the scam.

The counsel for the bail applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated. He further stated that the only fault of the applicant is that the applicant is the owner of the property from where the alleged fake call center was run.

Advocate R.K. Tarun appeared for the accused whereas Richa Dhawan, APP appeared for State.

The Court observed that there are serious allegations that the citizens belonging to the US were cheated.

The Court also noted that the grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail.

“Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. Custodial interrogation is a recognized mode of investigation which is not only permitted but is held to be more effective.”, the Court observed.

“Keeping in mind the nature of allegations, and the fact that the applicant has not joined and cooperated in investigation which has also led to initiation of proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., this Court feels that it is not a fit case for exercise of discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.”, the Court held while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea.

Cause Title- Ashwani Kumar v. State

Click here to read download Judgment