Uttarakhand High Court
Sonu vs State Of Uttarakhand on 9 April, 2025
2025:UHC:2915
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
1st Bail Application No. 2036 of 2024
Sonu ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel for the Applicant
Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, learned A.G.A for the state.
H on'ble Ashish N a it ha ni, J ( Ora l)
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of the applicant
accused Sonu, S/o Ayodhya Prasad, R/o 1506, J Block, Swaroop Nagar,
North West, Delhi, who is presently in judicial custody in connection
with FIR No. 293 of 2024, registered at Police Station Kankhal, District
Haridwar, for offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. As per the contents of the FIR dated 20.09.2024, the complainant
Shivaji Rathore, a shopkeeper by profession operating a general store
under the name "Thareja Provision Store" in Krishnanagar, Kankhal,
alleged that on 07.08.2024, two individuals approached his shop
impersonating representatives of Paytm, a digital payment platform.
They stated that they had come to "update" his Paytm scanner device
and sought to check its functioning. The said individuals introduced
themselves as Sonu (the present applicant) and Rohit (co-accused).
Relying on their representations, the complainant allowed them to
interact with the device.
1
2025:UHC:2915
3. Subsequently, on 08.08.2024, the same individuals visited the
complainant's shop again and purchased goods worth ₹17,760, which
they paid through Paytm.
4. The payment was reflected in the complainant's account. Again, on
12.08.2024, a similar transaction took place wherein they purchased
goods worth ₹12,030, again paid via Paytm. However, at around 11:00
p.m. on the same night, the complainant discovered that a total sum of
₹29,790 had been debited from his Paytm account without
authorisation. Upon realising the fraudulent nature of the transactions,
and following a period of inquiry and deliberation, the complainant
approached the police and lodged the present FIR on 20.09.2024, i.e.,
eight days after the incident of alleged unauthorised deduction.
5. On the same day, while the complainant was passing through Kankhal
Chowk market at around 3:00 p.m., he allegedly spotted the same two
individuals at a nearby shop owned by a woman, again posing as Paytm
executives and attempting to "update" the scanner device at that
location. The complainant, with the assistance of a local resident named
Deepak Verma, confronted the duo and restrained them.
6. A search of their belongings allegedly led to the recovery of certain
Paytm-related materials, including scanner stands, stickers, and sound
boxes.
7. The applicant and his co-accused were thereafter handed over to the
local police. The applicant was formally arrested on 21.09.2024 and has
remained in custody since.
8. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Avidit Noliyal and Mr.
Virendra Singh Rawat, A.G.A. for the state. Perused the records
available.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant has assailed the veracity of the
FIR and subsequent proceedings, contending that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present matter.
2
2025:UHC:2915
10. It is submitted that the delay of eight days in lodging the FIR has not
been satisfactorily explained, and that such delay is indicative of
afterthought or manipulation.
11. The applicant contends that there is no prior animosity with the
complainant, and the transactions in question appear to have been
voluntary and commercial in nature, for which the appropriate remedy,
if any, lies in civil proceedings.
12. It is argued that the present FIR has been engineered by the
complainant in collusion with the local police as a means to shield
themselves from public criticism over the emergence of such scams in
the region.
13. It has also been urged on behalf of the applicant that the arrest was
made in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 41-A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (as applicable), inasmuch as the offence
alleged carries a punishment below seven years and no notice under the
said provision was served before effecting arrest.
14. The applicant has also pointed to the absence of any independent
witness to the alleged arrest or recovery and contends that the recovery
of Paytm materials from his bag has been planted to support a
concocted version of events.
15. It is further argued that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents
and is a permanent resident of Delhi. He has already spent a significant
duration in judicial custody, and in the absence of any concrete material
showing his involvement in a larger conspiracy, his continued
incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment.
16. The applicant has also brought to the Court's notice that following the
registration of the instant FIR, his name was also implicated in another
FIR of similar nature Case Crime No. 799 of 2024 registered at Police
Station Kotwali Nagar, Haridwar which raises serious doubts as to the
bona fides of the investigating agency.
17. It is submitted that the applicant is being indiscriminately roped into
such cases without any objective evaluation of individual culpability.
3
2025:UHC:2915
18. Per contra, the State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the grant of
bail. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that the applicant
and his co-accused are involved in a systematic and premeditated act of
digital fraud wherein they impersonate representatives of Paytm and
use such deception to gain access to scanner devices, ultimately
manipulating transactions for wrongful gain.
19. The incident involving the complainant is not isolated, and the
involvement of the applicant in similar fraudulent conduct is evidenced
by his implication in FIR No. 799 of 2024.
20. The State contends that there is ample material on record, including
statements under Section 180 of BNSS from the complainant and
multiple other witnesses, namely Deepak Verma, Vipin Verma, Fareed,
and Mitesh Kumar Thareja, which corroborate the sequence of events
and the applicant's role in the same.
21. The State further submits that CCTV footage was collected during the
investigation, substantiating the physical presence and interaction of the
applicant at the complainant's premises on the relevant dates.
22. The charge sheet in the matter has been filed, and the investigation has
yielded sufficient material indicating direct involvement of the
applicant in the commission of the alleged offence.
23. It is further contended that the applicant was apprehended on the spot
by the complainant and other shopkeepers while attempting to replicate
the same modus operandi on another unsuspecting shop owner, which
rebuts the claim of false implication.
24. Regarding the arrest without prior notice under Section 41-A Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the State submits that the
provision was not attracted in the peculiar facts of the case, as the
applicant was apprehended in the act by members of the public and
handed over to police amidst public outrage. In such a scenario, the
formal issuance of a notice would not be warranted, especially given
the likelihood of breach of peace and the possibility of flight.
4
2025:UHC:2915
25. The State thus argues that, considering the gravity of the offence, the
existence of multiple similar allegations, the applicant's non-local
residence, and the likelihood of his tampering with evidence or
influencing witnesses, no case is made out for the grant of bail at this
stage. The respondent prays that the application be dismissed in the
interest of justice.
26. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on
behalf of the applicant and the respondent-State. It has also perused the
material available on record, including the contents of the FIR,
statements recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, the counter affidavit filed by the investigating
agency, the bail rejection order passed by the learned Sessions Court,
and the charge sheet submitted in the case.
27. The allegation against the applicant pertains to a form of digital fraud
that involves impersonation and misrepresentation, wherein the
applicant, along with another co-accused, allegedly posed as
representatives of Paytm an established digital payment service
provider and approached small shopkeepers under the guise of updating
scanner devices. Such impersonation, combined with subsequent
manipulative conduct involving transaction reversals, is indicative of a
fraudulent scheme specifically designed to exploit trust and lack of
technical awareness among ordinary shop owners.
28. The facts alleged in the FIR suggest not a casual or isolated commercial
dispute, but rather a deliberate and structured mechanism aimed at
deceiving individuals under the pretext of legitimate commercial
service.
29. The present incident, as narrated by the complainant Shivaji Rathore,
was not an isolated occurrence. It was preceded by a series of
interactions in which the applicant and his associate initially gained the
confidence of the complainant through apparently successful Paytm
transactions.
5
2025:UHC:2915
30. It was only upon retrospective deduction of funds from the
complainant's account that the deception became apparent. The pattern
of conduct, involving successive visits, fraudulent payments, and
unauthorised debit of funds, prima facie reveals pre-planning and a
calculated abuse of digital infrastructure.
31. This Court is not inclined to accept the applicant's assertion that the
incident amounts to no more than a civil dispute or failed transaction.
On the contrary, the cumulative facts, when viewed holistically, lend
weight to the allegation that deception was employed from the very
inception.
32. The contention of the applicant that there is an unexplained delay in
lodging the FIR does not, in the facts of this case, undermine the
credibility of the State. The delay of approximately eight days appears
to have been occasioned by the complainant's effort to verify the loss
and understand the cause of the unauthorised deduction.
33. In cases involving digital fraud, especially where the mechanism of
cheating is technical and not easily comprehensible to laypersons, such
delay is not uncommon and cannot be treated as fatal to the State's
case.
34. Furthermore, the delay stands substantially neutralised by the
subsequent recovery of Paytm-branded items from the possession of the
applicant, and the corroboration provided by multiple independent
witnesses whose statements have been recorded under Section 180 of
the BNSS.
35. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant was apprehended not
through formal arrest by the police but was instead caught red-handed
by the complainant and local shopkeepers while attempting to allegedly
commit a similar act of deception at another shop in the same market
area.
36. The recovery of digital transaction accessories from the possession of
the applicant further strengthens the allegations made in the FIR.
6
2025:UHC:2915
37. The State has placed on record that CCTV footage has been retrieved,
and the presence of the applicant at the complainant's shop on the
relevant dates is confirmed. This lends an added layer of objective
evidentiary support to the State version.
38. Moreover, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that another
FIR of similar nature, Case Crime No. 799 of 2024 under Section
318(4) of the BNS, is registered against the applicant in Police Station
Kotwali Nagar, Haridwar.
39. The existence of this parallel FIR involving comparable modus
operandi significantly diminishes the credibility of the defence claim
that the present case is a one-off instance of false implication.
40. On the contrary, the material on record gives rise to a reasonable
apprehension that the applicant may be involved in a wider pattern of
fraudulent activities targeting unsuspecting traders by exploiting the
growing dependence on digital payment infrastructure.
41. The submission of the applicant that his arrest was affected without
compliance with the mandate of Section 41-A of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (as applicable under the BNSS) is not
sustainable in the peculiar circumstances of this case.
42. The applicant was apprehended on the spot by private individuals,
amidst public outrage, and later handed over to the police. The
procedural protections contemplated under Section 41-A are intended
to prevent arbitrary arrest in cases of minor offences, not to shield an
accused apprehended in flagrante delicto during commission of a
cognisable offence.
43. The concern for maintaining public order and preventing further
repetition of such offences justified the immediate arrest.
44. This Court also takes into consideration the fact that the applicant is a
resident of Delhi, with no fixed roots in the district where the alleged
offence occurred. In the event of his release on bail, there exists a
legitimate and serious apprehension that he may abscond or tamper
with the evidence, including influencing or intimidating the witnesses,
7
2025:UHC:2915
who are all shopkeepers and residents of the same locality where the
offence took place.
45. The possibility of reoffending in a similar fashion also cannot be ruled
out at this stage, particularly given the allegation that the applicant was
attempting to target another shop at the time of being apprehended.
46. While the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution
is sacrosanct and bail remains the rule in criminal jurisprudence, this
right must be weighed against the larger interest of society and the
necessity to ensure the integrity of ongoing investigations, especially in
cases involving novel and technical forms of crime such as cyber and
digital fraud.
47. The gravity and the manner of commission of the alleged offence,
coupled with its potential to cause widespread financial harm to
unsuspecting victims, elevate the case beyond a routine bail
consideration.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has not been able to establish any special or mitigating circumstance that would justify the grant of bail at this stage. The material on record, viewed in its entirety, discloses a prima facie case against the applicant, and the apprehensions expressed by the State regarding flight risk and interference with the course of justice appear to be well-founded.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.
It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the consideration of bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the trial.
(Ashish Naithani J.) 09.04.2025 NR/ 8