2022 (12) TMI 1536 - HC - Indian Laws

Application for Anticipatory Bail Denied for Cyber Cheating Kingpin; Highlights Gravity of International Crime Involvement.

Prateek Arora Versus CBI

The court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offenses involving cyber cheating and extortion through an ... Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - running of an illegal call centre where there was a large-scale cyber cheating and extortion from foreign nationals by impersonating themselves as Police Officers - causing wrongful loss to foreign nationals and wrongful gain to themselves - HELD THAT:- In the present case, warrants have been issued against the applicant and he is 'absconding'. Even his brother, Mr. Vaibhav Arora, who had earlier filed a BAIL APPLN. 3292/2022 is 'absconding' - The custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to find the financial trails having crypto currencies which are yet to be unearthed. The offences are of serious nature and has international ramifications. It is also stated by applicant that in the present FIR, all the offences have maximum imprisonment of less or upto 7 years with or without fine and hence, notice under Section 41A Cr.PC is mandatorily required to be given as per the dicta of the judgment titled Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [2014 (7) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT]. This Court in a judgement titled as BHANU PRAKASH SINGH VERSUS STATE (G.N.C.T. OF DELHI) [2021 (6) TMI 1175 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has opined that '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.' It is not required to entertain the application as of today - Hence, the application is dismissed. Issues:Grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving cyber cheating and extortion from foreign nationals through an illegal call center, the accused's involvement in maintaining an e-wallet for bitcoin transactions, the accused being identified as the kingpin of the call center, the accused and his brother absconding, the need for custodial interrogation to trace financial trails involving crypto currencies, the seriousness and international ramifications of the offenses, the requirement of notice under Section 41A Cr.PC, and the interpretation of arrest provisions under Section 41 Cr.PC.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an application for anticipatory bail in a case involving cyber cheating and extortion from foreign nationals through an illegal call center. The FIR was registered under various sections of the IPC and the IT Act. The accused, along with his brother, is alleged to have operated the call center where employees impersonated police officers to cheat and extort money from victims. The accused is identified as the kingpin of the call center, and incriminating data was seized from the premises. Both the accused and his brother are currently absconding, with warrants issued against them.The court noted the seriousness of the offenses, the international ramifications, and the need for custodial interrogation to trace financial trails involving crypto currencies. The defense argued that since the offenses carry a maximum imprisonment of up to 7 years, notice under Section 41A Cr.PC should be given, citing the judgment in 'Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr.' The court referred to the judgment in 'Bhanu Prakash Singh vs. State (GNCT of Delhi)' to analyze the arrest provisions under Section 41 Cr.PC.The court emphasized that the law does not mandate a blanket ban on the arrest of accused persons in cases where the offense is punishable with imprisonment for less than 7 years or up to 7 years. The police officer must be satisfied about the necessity of arrest based on specific conditions and record reasons for the same. In this context, the court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail, considering the gravity of the offenses and the need for custodial interrogation to unearth financial trails involving crypto currencies.In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of following legal procedures in cases involving serious offenses, international implications, and complex financial transactions. The court's decision to dismiss the application for anticipatory bail reflects the need for thorough investigation and custodial interrogation to address the gravity of the alleged crimes.