‘Deceptive Messages, Fraud Links Threaten Digital Safety’: Delhi High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail, Dismisses Directors’ Pleas In Bulk SIM Fraud Over Alleged KYC Norm Violations
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma has declined to grant anticipatory bail to two directors of a private company accused of fraudulently obtaining large numbers of mobile SIM connections and diverting them for activities linked to cybercrime. The Court dismissed their pre-arrest bail pleas in a CBI investigation alleging large-scale breaches of telecom directions and KYC requirements, including the use of false end-user details to secure bulk business connections. The allegations further relate to circulation of deceptive messages and shortened links that led recipients to disclose sensitive information or report financial loss. The Court noted that such deceptive messaging and fraudulent links threaten public trust and digital safety, and held that custodial interrogation was warranted at this stage.
The prosecution case began with source information that private entities, including M/s Lord Mahavira Services India Pvt. Ltd., had obtained bulk mobile SIM connections from telecom service providers in violation of DoT guidelines and that these SIMs were misused for cyber-crime and fraudulent activity. It was stated that during 2024–2025, the company obtained 7,721 SIM connections from Vodafone Idea Ltd., and citizen feedback through the Chakshu module and complaints on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal linked several numbers to alleged impersonation and fraud complaints.
A preliminary enquiry recorded suspicions of SIM-box-like misuse, CDR patterns across numerous IMEIs, and alleged false end-user lists, leading to registration of the FIR. The applicants contended the SIMs were SMS-only promotional SIMs, questioned the plausibility of the alleged fraud amounts, submitted that no SIM box was recovered, and argued they were implicated due to designation despite cooperation with investigation. The CBI opposed, referring to alleged misuse of identities without consent and technical evidence of bulk SMS transmission through multiple IMEIs and devices.
On the prosecution narrative, the Court stated: “Brief facts of the case are that a source information was received by the investigating agency… that… entities… had obtained bulk mobile SIM connections… in violation of the guidelines issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), and that such SIM cards were thereafter misused for cyber-crime and fraudulent activities.” It recorded: “Citizen feedback received through the Chakshu module… recorded 210 complaints… In addition, financial fraud complaints… were registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP).”
On the enquiry material, the Court recorded: “CDR analysis… indicated patterns consistent with SIM-box usage… operated across 203 to 387 IMEIs and had generated one-second automated calls… prohibited under DoT guidelines dated 20.05.2024.” It also stated: “The pattern of IMEI usage suggested that the SIMs were being used in SIM boxes or automated systems capable of masking or switching IMEIs…”
Recording the applicants’ submissions, the Court noted: “all 20,986 SIM cards obtained… are SMS-only SIMs… restricted to SMS usage alone.” It further recorded: “no SIM box or any similar device has been recovered…” and “the applicants have been implicated only by virtue of their designation…”
On the CBI’s opposition, the Court recorded: “Statements of multiple end users establish that their identities were misused without consent.” and “technical evidence of bulk SMS transmission through multiple IMEIs and devices…”
Assessing the investigation material, the Court stated: “This Court notes that the material collected during investigation shows that SIM cards were procured in the names of persons who were neither employees… nor aware of the issuance or use of such SIMs.” It recorded: “Clearly, at this stage, these statements… prima facie establish fabrication of end-user lists and abuse of the KYC process…” It further noted: “both the applicants… have admitted that the end users projected as employees… were, in fact, never employed…”
The Court added: “offences involving circulation of deceptive messages and links for financial inducements and online frauds are on the rise and pose a serious threat to public trust and digital safety. In such matters, where fraudulent procurement of SIM cards is alleged to have facilitated cyber-crime and financial loss to victims, the discretion of anticipatory bail must be exercised with due circumspection.”
On the necessity of custodial interrogation, the Court stated: “The investigation in the present case is still at a nascent stage… make custodial interrogation necessary for uncovering the full conspiracy…” It concluded on bail discretion: “Given the seriousness of the allegations… this Court finds no ground to extend the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail…”
The Court ordered: “Accordingly, both the bail applications are dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Mr. Sachin Bajpai, Mr. Raj Karan Sharma, Mr. Aditya Kumar Yadav, Mr. Gaurav Chaudhry, Mr. Vaibhav Chaudhry, Mr. Anubhav Rathi, Ms. Arunima Singh, Ms. Akshika Chaudhary; Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Mr. Sachin Bajpai, Mr. Anurag Mishra, Mr. Ayush Yadav, Mr. Aadarsh Singh, Mr. Ratnesh, Ms. Rajnandani Srivastava, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, SPP with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Advocates.
Case Title: Amardeep Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation; Arihant Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation (connected matters).
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:745
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 164/2026; BAIL APPLN. 166/2026.
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma.
