New Delhi, Apr 16 A Delhi court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused in a cyber fraud case involving cheating through a WhatsApp investment scheme, saying that his custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy.
Additional Sessions Judge Harvinder Singh was hearing the anticipatory plea filed by Sumit, who has been accused of “serious cyber fraud” in which the complainant was induced to part with a substantial amount of money on the pretext of investment.
In the order dated April 10, the court said, “The grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant accused would amount to shutting doors upon further investigation into the matter, upon ascertaining the role of applicant accused and upon further investigation to unearth the whole conspiracy.”
The FIR against the accused was registered at the cyber police station in Shahdara under BNS Sections 318(3) (cheating) and 340 (using forged documents as genuine).
According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly lured the complainant into a WhatsApp group on the pretext of investment opportunities and induced her to transfer a substantial amount of money by promising high returns.
The fraud was allegedly carried out using a mobile number registered in the name of the accused’s mother, indicating an attempt to conceal identity, and was part of a larger coordinated scheme under investigation.
The court also took note of the accused’s relationship with one of the main co-accused and the investigating agency’s claim that recovery of the SIM card and device used in the offence was pending.
“It is noted that this is a case of cyber fraud where the complainant was induced to join a WhatsApp group for the purpose of cheating. She was made to part with huge sums of money on the pretext of investment. The phone number of the mother of the applicant was actively used in WhatsApp chats, and he is related to one of the main accused in the matter,” the court said.
Rejecting the defence contention that the accused had been falsely implicated and was not required for investigation, the court held that granting anticipatory bail at this stage would hamper the probe.
“In totality of the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for according anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, the application stands rejected,” the judge said.
