Delhi High Court
Tauheed Khan vs State on 24 May, 2012
Author: V.K.Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPN. No. 466/2012
Date of Decision : 24.05.2012
TAUHEED KHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sammer Chandra &
Mr. Wiqar Ahmed, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. This is an application for the grant of anticipatory bail in respect
of FIR No.32/2011 under Sections 420/468/467/471/120-B
registered by PS:Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner
is an innocent person who is running a Call Centre and has
nothing to do with the fraud which has taken place and,
therefore, he be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel has also
assured the Court that the petitioner would cooperate with the
investigations in unraveling the truth.
3. The learned APP has opposed the application for the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner is the main kingpin of this entire racket of fraud. In
this regard, it has been stated by the learned APP that the
number from which the credit card details were obtained by the
petitioner or his co-accused from the American Embassy on
telephone was issued to the petitioner by the American service
provider. It has, accordingly, been stated that the petitioner is
neck deep in this fraud committed by him.
4. I have carefully considered the respective submissions and also
gone through the FIR.
5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that FIR No.32/11, u/s
420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, PS: EOW, New Delhi has been
registered on the complaint of Shri Girish Luthra, Cluster Head
with ICICI Merchant Services Pvt. Ltd., having its regional office
at 11th Floor, Videocon Towers, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi.
In the complaint, it has been alleged that ICICI Merchant
Services received information from the representative of the
Bank of America (MBNA), based in the UK, that 44 of their
customers' cards had been used fraudulently between 1.7.2010
to 20.7.2010. The transactions were processed in both Indian
Rupees and US Dollars, with a combined value of
Rs.7,84,01,931/- attempted and Rs.1,45,53,482/- successful. As
per the enquiry of MBNA, it was found that the customers
received telephonic calls from India through Telephone No.0203
026 6480 (all of these numbers would start with a zero if dialed
from within the UK but may also present as starting with 0044)
and they gave their security code to the caller (Tauheed
Khan). The money was transferred in the account of
Indian Human Welfare Association (IHWA) through its web portal
www.indianhumanwelfaresociety.org. After conducting
preliminary enquiry, the present case was registered. During
the investigation, it was found that this No.0203 026 6480 is a
VOIP No. and telephone number issued by a company, called
Simwood based in London. The company had a contract with a
company Novanet based in the USA who actually issued this
number as a voice over internet protocol (VOIP) telephone
number. That notice was sent to the Novanet to provide the user
details of this VOIP No.0203 026 6480 during the alleged
period. As per the reply of Novanet, this Number 0203
026 6480 was assigned to Tauheed Khan, the present
petitioner, Address 178, Galib Apptt., West Pritam Pura,
Delhi-110034, Phone Number:919873460801, E-Mail-
[email protected]<mailto:tauheedahmed_khan
@yahoo.co.uk>. Mobile No.9873460801 is registered with
Tauheed Ahmed Khan, c/o Sumit Asija, Flat No.21, Galib Apptts.,
Pritam Pura, near Deepali Chowk, Near Passport Office, Pitam
Pura Club, New Delhi. Tauheed Khan is one who contacted and
extracted the secret information from customers of Bank of
America whose accounts have been compromised. The fraud
occurred on the same day or on the next date after receiving the
calls from VOIP No.0203 026 6480. During the investigation, it
has also been found that the petitioner, Tauheed Khan also tried
to withdraw the amount using his internet as some of the
fraudulent transactions IP address belonging to the petitioner,
Tauheed Khan, 178, Galib Apptts., Pitam Pura, Delhi.
6. The above facts, coupled with the fact that the petitioner, at the
time of the search being conducted at his business premises as
well as the residential premises, had managed to escape, clearly
shows that he was involved in the matter. The complete truth
cannot be unraveled without the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner.
7. I am of the opinion that there is prima facie evidence which has
been gathered by the Investigating Agency that the petitioner is
the main person who was responsible for the commission of this
fraud and, therefore, he deserves to be custodially interrogated.
8. This is not a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail.
9. Petition is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J
MAY 24, 2012
tp
