Anticipatory Bail Denied: Delhi Court Emphasizes Need for Custodial Interrogation in Cyber Fraud Case.


07 April 2025 Cyber Crime >> Debt Recovery   |   Default or Fraud >> Debt Recovery  

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an anticipatory bail application in a cryptocurrency fraud case, underscoring the necessity of custodial and sustained interrogation when an accused is evasive and non-cooperative during the investigation. The ruling came in a case registered under Sections 318(4)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (likely a typo, meant to be Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - BNSS or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - BNS is not directly relevant here, but the case details are clear).

The case originated from a complaint by Rishabh Kapoor, who joined a Telegram group named "Badshah Broking" that offered market share calls for "Futures and Options." Lured by the scheme, Kapoor contacted a phone number from the group and was advised to invest in cryptocurrency. He subsequently transferred a total of Rs. 2,03,500/- through a UPI QR Code. Later, he received a tax invoice for a commission of Rs. 9,700/- as a "fund money exchange charge."

 

 

Investigation revealed that initial transactions amounting to Rs. 33,400/- were credited to the HDFC bank account of Ajay Mehra in Tonk, Rajasthan, and withdrawn on November 11, 2024. Ajay Mehra, upon joining the investigation, disclosed that he had met the accused/applicant, Deepak Verma, in October. Verma allegedly asked Mehra to share his bank details, ATM card, and SIM card, claiming his own account was blocked and he needed to receive an urgent payment, offering Rs. 2,500/- for the favour. Mehra then opened a new HDFC bank account, procured a new SIM and mobile number, and handed over these details along with the ATM card to Verma. After discovering the fraud, Ajay Mehra returned Rs. 33,400/- to the complainant.

Despite being served a notice, Deepak Verma failed to join the investigation or provide the ATM cards, SIM cards, and mobile phones involved. The investigating officer is also in the process of obtaining CCTV footage from ATMs where the defrauded amounts were withdrawn.

During the bail hearing, the learned APP, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, contended that the accused/applicant had been "evasive" and "not responding clearly to the questions," thus warranting no further indulgence. It was highlighted that the accused/applicant had shifted a SIM card from one IMEI number to another but refused to disclose who he transferred it to, necessitating "custodial and sustained interrogation."

In contrast, the accused/applicant's counsel offered only a "bald plea of innocence," stating that the accused was unaware of the case's registration or the investigation.

The Court, after considering the arguments and the updated status report, concluded that the investigation into this cryptocurrency fraud was at a "nascent stage." The accused's evasiveness and lack of cooperation were deemed critical factors. The Court emphasized that for effective investigation, a sustained custodial interrogation was required.

Given these circumstances, the Court found no fit case to grant anticipatory bail and consequently dismissed the application. The decision reaffirms the principle that non-cooperation and evasiveness during the early stages of a complex investigation, particularly in cyber fraud cases where digital trails are crucial, can be a decisive factor in denying pre-arrest bail.


Section 318, BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA - 2023