The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the cyber fraud case involving Jugal Kishor. The court’s decision to dismiss the pre-arrest bail application emphasizes the gravity of the offense and the need for thorough investigation. The case, arising from a complaint by Anjali Kapoor Bissel, sheds light on the elaborate fraudulent activities impacting multiple individuals. Stay tuned for more updates on this evolving legal scenario.
Facts
- The Police found that the cheated amount had been transferred to the accounts of Jugal Kishor.
- Two associates of the applicant were arrested from Jharkhand, admitting their involvement in cheating multiple people.
- Some accounts receiving cheated money were in the name of the applicant, with a substantial amount credited over time.
- The present application under Section 438 of CrPC seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 104/2023 for offences under Sections 419/120 IPC.
- Complainant Anjali Kapoor Bissel alleged being cheated of ₹4,98,860 by unknown persons through a fraudulent PAN Card update link.
- The complainant shared her portal access as requested by a fake Bank Manager, resulting in the fraudulent withdrawal.
- The associates disclosed the applicant’s role in gathering victim data for facilitating the cheating.
Arguments
- The father of the applicant is a co-accused in the case.
- The father has already been granted bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.
- The learned counsel for the applicant points out this fact.
Analysis
- Grant of pre-arrest bail is different from regular bail as the accused is not yet arrested and substantial investigation is pending.
- Digital records link the applicants to the alleged offense, along with allegations of cheating other persons.
- The manner of offenses indicates a pattern of fraudulent activities exploiting the trust of the public.
- Concerns of potential influence over evidence and future offenses justifies denial of pre-arrest bail.
- Power to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of CrPC is exceptional and to be used sparingly.
- Risk of harming the investigation and hindering uncovering of the conspiracy if bail is granted.
- Observation of the proliferation of cyber frauds exploiting online banking reliance.
- No influence on trial outcome intended by the bail decision.
- Custodial interrogation deemed necessary due to nature of the offense and onerous task for the Investigating Agency.
- Online banking ubiquity highlights significance of the offense.
- Investigation at an early stage with evidence pointing to the applicants’ involvement.
- Granting anticipatory bail to the applicant would impede further investigation.
- Custodial interrogation is more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect.
- The court’s decision in granting anticipatory bail is different from bail after arrest or conviction.
- The discretion under Section 438 should not be exercised in favor of granting anticipatory bail.
- The nature and seriousness of the criminal conspiracy impacting the career of millions of students should be considered.
- Public interest would suffer if anticipatory bail is granted in this case.
- The nature of the offence involves cheating multiple victims.
- The Court does not find the case suitable for exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 of the CrPC.
Decision
- Present application dismissed
- Use Original Names instead of Respondent No 1 or Petitioner No 1.
Case Title: DEEPAK MANDAL Vs. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI (2024:DHC:3700)
Case Number: BAIL APPLN.-1608/2024
