Delhi High Court - Orders
Navneet Bhatnagar vs State on 17 January, 2022
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 33/2022
NAVNEET BHATNAGAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Sandeep Mishra, Advocate with
Mr.Vivek Jaiswal, Advocate.
Versus
STATE .... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP for the State
with Inspector Sunil and SI Amit
Maan, P.S.Paschim Vihar (West).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 17.01.2022 The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 7th January 2022 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge preponed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and dismissed the same in FIR No. 1056/2021 under Sections 420/120B IPC registered at P.S.Paschim Vihar (West).
2. Contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court are that after FIR No. 1056/2021 was registered on 22nd December 2021, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge during the vacations which came up on 31 st December 2021, when the learned Additional Sessions Judge, despite opposition of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE Crl.Rev.P. 33/2022 Page MUKTA 1 of 6 GUPTA Signing Date:18.01.2022 20:20:55 learned APP for the State, listed the anticipatory bail application for 3rd February 2022 granting interim bail to the petitioner on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- as also sought reply from the Investigating officer after interrogation of the petitioner. In the meantime, before another learned Additional Sessions Judge, regular bail application of the co-accused Manish was listed and while hearing the said bail application on 4th January 2022, learned Additional Sessions Judge issued notice to the Investigating Officer to be served on the petitioner and preponed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner from 3 rd February 2022 to 7th January 2022. In the meantime, the petitioner was also directed to join the investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner joined the investigation on 5th and 6th January 2022 which fact was not brought to the notice of the Court and on 7th January 2022, no notice was served on the petitioner and the Investigating Officer incorrectly stated that the address of the petitioner was not traceable despite the fact that the Investigating Officer was aware of the fact that the petitioner has two addresses i.e. one at Uttam Nagar and the other at Model Town. It is further stated that on 7 th January 2022, learned counsel for the petitioner desperately tried to join the hearing before the learned ASJ through video conferencing, however, could not be connected and the impugned order was passed without hearing learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The present petition came up before this Court on 14th January, 2022 when this Court on hearing learned counsel for petitioner and learned APP for the State issued notice returnable for today and in the meantime this Court extended the interim protection and directed that the petitioner will Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE Crl.Rev.P. 33/2022 Page MUKTA 2 of 6 GUPTA Signing Date:18.01.2022 20:20:55 join the investigation on 14th and 15th January 2022 before the Investigating Officer and if required, even on 16th January 2022.
5. As per the status report filed by the State, the above-noted FIR was registered on 21st December 2021 after a secret information was received about illegal call centre involved in duping the people based in U.S.A by impersonating as Amazon customer service providers. Thereafter, the information was shared with senior offices and a raid was conducted at the fourth floor of 428, Bhera Enclave, Paschim Vihar where three persons namely Manish, Ankit Dev and Vipul were engaged in internet calling through a complete set up. These three accused were arrested and they stated that the owner of the office was the present petitioner who stays somewhere in Model Town. They further informed that through this call centre, they communicated with U.S. citizens by posing Amazon agents for purchase and cancelling of the orders using Eye Beam and X-Lite software and that 10-15 boys and girls also worked in the said call centre who had not come on the said date. Mobile phones of Manish, Vipul and Ankit Dev were collected. 15 computers were found at the said place which were seized. During interrogation, the three accused further reiterated that the call centre was owned by the petitioner and his friends namely Roshan, Deepanshu etc. and the petitioner had many other call centres as well. It was disclosed that they were extorting money from the customers based in U.S. by claiming that their Amazon I.D. had been hacked and charges have been imposed on them and when the customer would call back to know more about it, they would show them fake repair of their Amazon I.D. through 'Any Desk', a remote desktop application and the target would be made to pay in the form of target gift cards which the accused persons would redeem. It was revealed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE Crl.Rev.P. 33/2022 Page MUKTA 3 of 6 GUPTA Signing Date:18.01.2022 20:20:55 that this call centre was running for the last three months and on an average, six U.S. citizens were cheated daily and were duped of 500 U.S.D. to 5000 U.S.D. on daily average basis.
6. As per the status report, in the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner listed on 28th December 2021, the petitioner had provided only one address i.e. House No. 66/67, Dal Mill Road, Uttam Magar, Delhi- 110059. In the said application, Investigating Officer filed the reply, inter alia, mentioning that the address disclosed by the petitioner was visited personally and was not found to be existing and thus, the counsel for the petitioner sought time to go through the reply and the matter was posted for 31st December 2021. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who was sitting in the Vacation Bench granted interim bail, subject to the petitioner joining the investigation, however, since the address was incomplete, no notice could be served on the petitioner and the petitioner did not join the investigation till 5th January 2022. On 4th January, 2022, when the hearing in the application of the co-accused Manish came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, notice was directed to be issued to the petitioner to appear through video conferencing on 7th January 2022.
7. It has been repeatedly the case of the petitioner before this Court that the Investigating Officer made a wrong statement before the Court as despite the fact that the petitioner joined the investigation on 5th and 6th January 2022 the same was not brought to the notice of the Court. Interestingly, the petitioner also does not claim that after 31st December 2021 till 4th January 2022, he joined the investigation. However, on 5 th and 6th January 2022, he on his own was present before the Investigating Officer. It is thus evident that the petitioner was keeping a watch on the proceedings and was thus, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE Crl.Rev.P. 33/2022 Page MUKTA 4 of 6 GUPTA Signing Date:18.01.2022 20:20:55 aware of the facts. On 5th January 2022 when the petitioner joined the investigation, he disclosed his complete address as A-66/67, 2nd Floor, Dal Mill Road, Uttam nagar and other address as House No. 63/1, Model Town- III, G.F., R.Block, Delhi which was not revealed in the petition. This Court has also gone through the questionnaire issued to the petitioner wherein on a query raised regarding the mobile phone being used, the petitioner stated that he was using a Samsung mobile phone whereas during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer also found that the petitioner was using one Apple I-Phone 11 Pro Max with IMEI 35392110286889 which clearly showed that the petitioner was present at the property No. 428, 4 th Floor, Bhera Enclave, Paschim Vihar many a times from where the call centre was being run.
6. The claim of the petitioner that no service was effected on him for 7th January, 2022 and without hearing him, the date of hearing in anticipatory bail application was preponed and his anticipatory bail was rejected by the learned ASJ, deserves to be rejected, for the reason, the petitioner could not be served till 4th January 2022 and of his own, he joined the investigation on 5th and 6th January 2022 which shows that he was watching the proceedings of the co-accused as well. Further, the case of the petitioner is also that the learned counsel could not join the proceedings through video conferencing and without hearing him his anticipatory bail application was dismissed. This fact is belied by the reason presence of learned counsel for the petitioner is noted in the impugned order dated 7th January, 2022. Further the impugned order was passed by the learned ASJ on the report submitted by the Investigating Officer noting that the allegations were in respect of a fake call centre being run; the accused Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE Crl.Rev.P. 33/2022 Page MUKTA 5 of 6 GUPTA Signing Date:18.01.2022 20:20:55 persons were systematically cheating the money from U.S. citizens by illegally using the softwares; that the role assigned to the petitioner was that he was the owner of the said call centre; eight accused persons were still absconding and there was likelihood that the petitioner may tamper with or destroy the evidence as it was a case of cyber cheating. Thus keeping in view the gravity of offence and that custodial interrogation was necessary, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, recalled the interim order and directed the Investigating Officer to arrest the petitioner if he fails to surrender. In any case, this Court had heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and considering the gravity of the offence, this Court finds no error in the impugned order, declining to grant further anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Petition is dismissed.
8. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JANUARY 17, 2022/akb Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE Crl.Rev.P. 33/2022 Page MUKTA 6 of 6 GUPTA Signing Date:18.01.2022 20:20:55