Recently, the Delhi High Court declined to grant pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of a sophisticated digital fraud, impersonation, and forgery, emphasizing that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that cannot be routinely granted. The matter concerned an FIR alleging financial extortion through fake court orders and police impersonation, where the accused allegedly misused technology to defraud the complainant. The Court observed that granting pre-arrest bail at this stage would impede the ongoing investigation and undermine public interest.
Brief Facts:
The FIR was lodged following a complaint that the complainant had been extorted by individuals impersonating police officers, who threatened him with links to high-profile persons and misused his Aadhar for fraudulent activities. The accused allegedly used video calls, fake Supreme Court and CBI documents, and multiple communication channels to extract money. During the investigation, a SIM card traced to the applicant was found to have facilitated communications and monetary transactions linked to the fraud. Co-accused implicated the applicant, revealing his role in opening bank accounts used in the scheme.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The counsel for the applicant argued that the accused was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He contended that the only evidence against the applicant was the disclosure statements of co-accused, which were insufficient to establish culpability. The applicant sought pre-arrest bail on the ground of alleged false implication.
Contentions of the State:
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the investigation was at a nascent stage. It highlighted that the SIM card used in communications with the complainant was in the possession of the applicant during the fraudulent transactions, indicating his active involvement. The prosecution argued that premature relief could obstruct the investigation and compromise the ability to uncover the full conspiracy.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and must be exercised sparingly. The bench emphasized, "Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted in a routine manner. The power is extraordinary in nature and must not shield the accused before thorough investigation. Granting such relief at this stage would impede the prospects of unearthing all ramifications involved in the conspiracy and harm public interest."
The Court further observed that the case involved complex digital fraud and technological manipulations, making the investigation intricate. Custodial interrogation was necessary to fully ascertain the role of the accused. The bench clarified that the facts at this stage did not indicate false implication or malintent by the investigating agency.
The decision of the Court:
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the nascent stage of the investigation, and the potential impact on public interest, the High Court dismissed the application for pre-arrest bail. The Court clarified that the observations were limited to the bail application and should not influence the trial or be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
Case Title: Mohit vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Case No.: Bail Appln. 3721/2025
Coram: Justice Amit Mahajan
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Ashutosh Singh, Anubhav Singh, Bhupender Singh
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Naresh Kumar Chahar (APP)
Read judgment @Latestlaws.com
