In a recent legal development, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail application in the case of Headsup Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Delhi. The judgement sheds light on the serious allegations of fraudulent activities and manipulation of Aadhar cards involving the applicant relating to the misuse of a company’s name for job-related frauds. Stay informed about the details of this significant legal decision.
Facts
- The bail application is filed under Section 438 of the CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail.
- The FIR was registered based on the complaint of Mr. Sumit Kumar, director of M/S Headsup Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
- Allegations include involvement in fraudulent activities through the firm and manipulation of Aadhar cards.
- Proceedings under Section 82 of the CrPC were initiated against the applicant.
- Opposition to granting bail by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor citing seriousness of allegations.
- Information provided by bank officials during investigation implicating the applicant in the fraudulent activities.
- Disclosure by co-accused Anant Jain @ Aashu about his employment under the applicant in facilitating fraudulent practices.
Arguments
- Raids conducted at applicant’s residence in April, 2023.
- Notices under Section 41 of CrPC served but applicant did not join investigation.
- Argument made that applicant’s modus operandi indicates dishonest intention.
Analysis
- The allegations against the applicant involve the misuse of a company’s name for job-related frauds.
- Bank officials identified the applicant who claimed to be the director of another company.
- The allegations were not made to unnecessarily harm the applicant.
- The applicant is accused of channelling fraudulent proceeds to another company he registered.
- A co-accused confessed to aiding in operational tasks for the fraudulent firms.
- Public interest would suffer if the allegations are true.
- The interim protection does not benefit the applicant.
- The nature of allegations requires further investigation.
- The Judge should not have granted anticipatory bail considering the nature and impact of the conspiracy.
- WhatsApp chats on a co-accused’s phone indicate the applicant managed accounts and manipulated Aadhar cards.
- Granting anticipatory bail would harm the investigation and impede uncovering all aspects of the conspiracy.
- Activities constitute fraudulent practices damaging public trust in online financial transactions.
- Granting anticipatory bail is not suitable in this case given the orchestrated conspiracy involved.
- Custodial interrogation of the applicant is deemed necessary.
- Considerations for pre-arrest bail are different from regular bail considerations.
- Specific allegations involve financial entrapment via online platforms with an alias named Telegram.
- Unknown individuals formed a group to deceive people for monetary gains under the applicant’s direction.
- The power to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC is to be used sparingly and not routinely.
- Granting pre-arrest bail would hinder investigation and allow the applicant to evade accountability.
- Relevant considerations for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are different from those for bail during investigation or pending appeal.
- The consideration for anticipatory bail need not be the same as for bail after arrest.
- Custodial interrogation is more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well.
- The nature of the offence involves cheating multiple victims.
- Considering the possibility of multiple victims, the court does not find this case suitable for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.
Decision
- The present application is dismissed.
- The decision on the bail application should not influence the outcome of the Trial.
- The dismissal of the bail application should not be taken as an opinion on the merits of the case.
Case Title: DEEPAK GARG @ TANISHQ Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (2024:DHC:3889)
Case Number: BAIL APPLN.-2403/2023
