Delhi High Court
Sulav Adhikari vs State Of Govt Of Nct Delhi & Anr. on 26 September, 2023
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 19.09.2023
Pronounced on: 26.09.2023
+ BAIL APPLN. 1484/2023, CRL.M.(BAIL) 635/2023
SULAV ADHIKARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anish Shrestha, Mr. Brij
Ballash Tiwari and Mr. S.N.
Gautam, Advocates along with
applicant.
versus
STATE OF GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,
APP for the State with SI
Thakur Singh, P.S. Cyber West
District Delhi.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Mr.
Manish Kumar, Ms. Sonam,
Ms. Swati and Mr. Shubham
Tyagi, Advocates for
complainant/R-2.
+ BAIL APPLN. 1485/2023, CRL.M.(BAIL) 636/2023
SUSAN ADHIKARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anish Shrestha, Mr. Brij
Ballash Tiwari and Mr. S.N.
Gautam, Advocates along with
applicant.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN BAIL APPLN. 1484/2023 & connected matters Page 1 of 8
Signing Date:26.09.2023
19:07:02
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,
APP for the State with SI
Thakur Singh, P.S. Cyber West
District Delhi.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Mr.
Manish Kumar, Ms. Sonam,
Ms. Swati and Mr. Shubham
Tyagi, Advocates for
complainant/R-2.
+ BAIL APPLN. 1515/2023, CRL.M.(BAIL) 645/2023
ADITYA RAJ VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anish Shrestha, Mr. Brij
Ballash Tiwari and Mr. S.N.
Gautam, Advocates along with
applicant.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ANR. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,
APP for the State with SI
Thakur Singh, P.S. Cyber West
District Delhi.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Mr.
Manish Kumar, Ms. Sonam,
Ms. Swati and Mr. Shubham
Tyagi, Advocates for
complainant/R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN BAIL APPLN. 1484/2023 & connected matters Page 2 of 8
Signing Date:26.09.2023
19:07:02
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. The present applications have been filed under Section 438
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C') on behalf of
applicants seeking anticipatory bail in the case arising out of FIR
bearing no. 15/2023, registered at Police Station Cyber (West),
Delhi for offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 ('IPC').
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the
present FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant
Manish Meena against the present petitioners for committing the
offence of cheating by way of advertising and selling of banned
product Pink Flamingo Neimo 2.0 through facebook. It was
alleged that on 03.03.2023 when complainant was out of Delhi, a
courier was received in his name, while he had placed no such
order. However, one of his office staff members had received the
courier and had paid a sum of Rs.4,000/-. It was alleged by the
complainant that the payment was made by Amarjeet Kaur from
her account, who is an employee of complainant. The complainant
had reported the same at the office of Blue Dart where he was
informed that the order was delivered by Nimbus India and the
refund for the delivery was made to the complainant from Paytm
mobile number registered in the name of applicant/accused, Sulav
Adhikari. On the next day, when office staff of the complainant
had contacted Blue Dart, they had received another call asking for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.09.2023
19:07:02
an OTP, and they were informed that the money of complainant
will be received within 24 hours. Thereafter, the complainant had
received his money back in the name of Sulav Adhikari whose
Paytm number was ***959, and after a few hours a sum of
Rs.4100/- was deducted from the account of the complainant. On
10.03.2023, a courier boy came to the complainant, but the
company name was XPRESSBEES. The complainant was asked
for an OTP which he refused to give and denied to receive the
package.
3. The police had seized 2 shipments which had contained 12
nail polishes but shipment was prepared with a label of Pink
Flamingo Neimo 2.0 product. Thereafter, learned Trial Court had
dismissed anticipatory bail applications moved by
applicants/accused persons vide order dated 25.04.2023.
4. Learned counsel for applicants states that no offence under
Section 420 of IPC is made out against applicants. It is stated that
applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
also stated that applicants are the employees of Suson Adhikari
Media (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. which conducts online sale and purchase of
beauty products. The company had delivered the products ordered
by complainant herein and the payment was made for them,
however, a cancellation request with refund was made and entire
amount was returned to the complainant. A second order was
placed on 06.03.2023 by the complainant and accordingly, delivery
was made. It is stated that the applicants have not cheated the
complainant of any money. Therefore, bail be granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.09.2023
19:07:02
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, states that this
is a cybercrime case whereby multiple people have been cheated
off by applicants herein. It is stated that applicants appeared in the
police station after issuance of notice under Section 41 of Cr.P.C.
and they were examined however, they did not cooperate in the
investigation. It is also stated that during investigation, CDR of
complainant was examined and no message was found with regard
to placing of any such order. It is further stated that the employees
of applicants namely, Surender Rabidas and Azhar, in their
statement had stated that no product with the name of Pink
Flamingo Wireless was being sold by the company. However,
upon conducting further investigation, and as per data provided by
Nimbus Post Pvt. Ltd. that a total of 6267 orders out of 20590
orders have been placed for the Pink Flamingo. It is stated that
since investigation is at an initial stage and in order to unearth the
conspiracy that has been happening on a much larger scale,
custodial interrogation of applicants herein is essential. Therefore,
bail be rejected.
6. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of learned
counsel of applicants and learned counsel for respondents and have
perused material on record.
7. In the case at hand, applicants/accused persons have
advertised and sold banned product Pink Flamingo Neimo 2.0
through Facebook. It was reported in the complaint that orders
were placed in the name of complainant without his consent and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.09.2023
19:07:02
had charged him for the same. However, the payment for first
order was refunded to him.
8. During investigation, it was revealed that the call detail
records of complainant showed that orders for the said products
were not placed by the complainant. On 09.05.2023, applicants
have joined investigation and applicant/accused, Suson Adhikari
had disclosed that he runs the company in the name of 'Suson
Adhikari Media (OPC) Pvt. Ltd.' This company is registered on
the online shopping platform of Shopify through a website. By
way of this website, consumers may contact Shopify and place the
orders. Then, Shopify directs those orders to accused/applicant's
company, Susan Adhikari Media (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. for packaging
and delivery of the orders. The applicant/accused, Aditya Raj
Verma had disclosed that he runs a company in the name of
'Aditya Raj Air Media Private Limited' and his company has no
connection with the company of other applicants/accused persons.
However, during investigation, it was revealed that no such
company in the name of 'Aditya Raj Air Media Private Limited'
was found to be running and that he had vacated the property in
February, 2023.
9. A perusal of records reveals that the employees of
applicants/accused persons herein, in their statements, had stated
that they have been working on the directions of
applicants/accused persons, Suson Adhikari, and Aditya Raj
Verma. This Court notices that 2 shipments were seized which had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.09.2023
19:07:02
although contained only nail polishes but the shipments were
labeled with the banned product in question.
10. The APP draws attention of this court to the fact that
investigation is at an initial stage and replies from different
agencies are yet to be received and that applicants/accused person
are probably running a large scale fake parcel delivery scam and
possibly have been cheating innocent people.
11. A perusal of material on record reveals that the accused
persons are allegedly running a fake parcel delivery scam on a
large scale by the means of online portals. This Court observes that
the perpetration of scams like the one under consideration impacts
the society on a much broader scale. It not only effects the trust
and confidence of individuals, but also undermines the integrity of
online payment systems and digital transactions as a whole. Such
scams, therefore, should be deemed as grave offenses, given their
potential to serve as a significant deterrent to public trust in the
sphere of online financial transactions--an indispensable pillar of
our modern economy.
12. In an era where digital transactions have evolved to become
fundamental component of our economic infrastructure, any threat
to the security and trustworthiness of online financial interactions
poses a direct challenge to the economic stability and progress of
our society. Resultantly, it is imperative that we view such offenses
with the seriousness they deserve, recognizing their potential to not
only harm individual victims but also disrupt the foundation of
online transaction.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.09.2023
19:07:02
13. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the
courier company was asked to provide the details of the shipment
which were booked by the alleged persons for delivery but the
complete data was never received. In this regard, this Court
observes that such data is essential in order to trace such scams as
the present complaint is not just a representation of an individual
interest, but in the larger interest of the society, and the conspiracy
needs to be unearthed.
14. A perusal of status report filed by the State reveals that the
petitioners were served with a notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C.
for appearance on 14.03.2023 and had appeared before the
investigating officer. However, as per status report, the petitioners
herein had not co-operated with the investigation.
15. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case and that the allegations the accused persons are serious in
nature and that they are allegedly involved in running a financial
scam, this Court does not deem it fit to grant anticipatory bail to
the accused persons.
16. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail applications
alongwith pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.
17. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed herein above
shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
18. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 26, 2023/zp
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.09.2023
19:07:02
