The Delhi High Court opined that further investigation cannot be ground for the continued incarceration and granted bail to the Applicant noting that the primary evidence in the case would mostly be documentary evidence and has already been possessed by the Investigating Office. Further, at this stage presumption of tampering with the witness or destroying evidence could not be presumed.
Brief Facts:
An FIR was registered on the complaint wherein it was asserted that the Complainant took a loan from an app called “Agile Loan”. It was claimed that the Complainant received threatening calls to pay more than what was due. Despite clearing dues, abusive phone calls were received and threats of sending photos to relatives and friends were also received.
During the technical enquiry, it was found that similar complaints were registered against the same app. During the investigation and further investigation, the address of the proprietor of the app was found but the Applicant was not there.
Based on secret information, the Applicant was arrested and since 15.07.2022 has been in judicial custody.
Therefore, the present application has been filed to seek bail.
Contentions of the Applicant:
It was contended that the Applicant is not the creator of the app and has nothing to do with it. It was submitted that even the investigation revealed that the app was created by a Chinese national.
It was submitted that the Applicant became a party in the case because of a college mate who subsequently drowned and died.
Contentions of the State:
It was argued that the Accused has helped in the building of the said app and was responsible for opening bank accounts that were used to route money.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that as per the Prosecution, the role of the Applicant was limited to helping in the opening of the bank accounts of non-existent companies for the transfer of money outside India.
It was noted that the primary evidence in the case would mostly be documentary evidence and has already been possessed by the Investigating Office. Further, at this stage presumption of tampering with the witness or destroying evidence could not be presumed.
It was opined that further investigation cannot be ground to the continued incarceration of the Applicant. There would be no purpose served by keeping the Applicant in custody.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the findings, the Delhi High Court granted bail and accordingly allowed the bail application.
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma
Case No: Bail Appln. 3116/2022
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Sajjan K. Singh, Mr. Santosh Kumar Sahu
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Mr. Aman Usman
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
