Delhi HC Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Fake Call Centre Kingpin Who Cheated US Citizens

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to the alleged kingpin of a cyber scam that targeted US citizens and said that the "extraordinary remedy" is not to be granted routinely.
     
Justice Amit Mahajan stated that custodial interrogation is held to be more effective and anticipatory bail interferes in an investigation, therefore the court must be circumspect in exercising its power to grant anticipatory bail.
     
Emphasising that an anticipatory bail order can be used as a shield, the court observed that the allegations made against the applicant in the present case are not frivolous and he has also not cooperated with the investigation.
     
"Arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also to serve other purposes.
     
"The grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail," said the court in a recent order.
     
"Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.
     
"Custodial interrogation is a recognised mode of investigation which is not only permitted but is held to be more effective," it stated.
     
An FIR was registered in 2020 alleging that the applicant was running a fake call centre to cheat US citizens through misuse of their Social Society Number. The applicant, the owner of the call centre, was actively involved in the scam, it was claimed in the FIR.
     
The court observed that protecting the applicant would be detrimental to the investigation and noted that the key aspects of the probe in the case included ascertaining the role of other key persons, and determining the modus operandi, as well as end users of the funds.
     
It stated that the interrogation of an accused in custody is qualitatively different from one done when the accused is given protection by the court, and the present case was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.