Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja has rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant in a cyber fraud case involving a substantial defrauded amount of Rs. 17,95,000. The Court recorded that prima facie material established the applicant’s financial links to the fraudulent transactions and observed the necessity for custodial interrogation to unravel the broader conspiracy. The Court remarked that economic offences demand a distinct approach and stated that anticipatory bail in such serious cases must be granted sparingly.

The applicant filed for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 30/2023, registered under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC at Police Station Cyber Police Station, Rohini, Delhi. The complaint was initiated by Pradeep Kumar Behera, who alleged being defrauded through an online part-time job scam, resulting in a financial loss of Rs. 17,95,000.

Also Read: Courts Are Not As Fragile As Flowers To Wither And Wilt | Supreme Court Declines Contempt Action Over Scandalous Remarks But Warns That Hate Speech Must Be Dealt With An Iron Hand

The complainant asserted that he was lured via WhatsApp and Telegram to perform investment-based tasks and transferred funds from his Canara, SBI, and Federal Bank accounts, including a transfer of Rs. 9,00,000 to a Yes Bank account held by M/s Sanofi Enterprises. Investigations traced the fund flow to multiple entities, including ICICI Bank (M/s S.S. Fashion), Axis Bank (Rapipay Fintech Pvt. Ltd.), and ultimately through an agent identified as Feroz Ibrahim Shaikh. IP logs linked this agent’s activities to the applicant.

The applicant was found to be a Rapipay agent, and multiple complaints had been registered against his virtual account. Further investigation revealed connections to co-accused Mohammed Fauzan Hajatay, the applicant’s brother-in-law, who was actively involved in fund collection. IP addresses related to Feroz’s Rapipay ID also matched the travel itineraries of another brother-in-law, Rehan, indicating coordinated activity.

According to the applicant’s counsel, a Section 41A Cr.P.C. notice was served to his father at their Pune residence on 24.01.2025, summoning him for investigation on 10.02.2025. The applicant claimed to have complied and joined the investigation, submitting written clarifications and denying involvement. Despite these submissions, the Investigating Officer allegedly ignored his cooperation and falsely recorded non-cooperation in the status report.

The applicant’s counsel contended that the prosecution case lacked specific evidence directly implicating the applicant. He argued that the status reports contained inconsistencies and contradictions, with inflated and vague allegations. Reliance was placed on precedents including Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, State of Kerala v. Mahesh (2021) 14 SCC 86, and Ashish Mittal v. SFIO 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2484, to argue that mere allegations without cogent material cannot justify the denial of bail.

It was also submitted that the case satisfied the parameters set out in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, as the offences were punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and did not require custodial interrogation. Additional reliance was placed on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 to argue that gravity of the offence alone is not sufficient to deny bail.

The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application, asserting that the applicant was directly linked to the fraudulent transactions. It was submitted that Rs. 4,00,000 out of the defrauded amount was traced directly to the applicant’s account. The prosecution relied on the statement of co-accused Feroz Ibrahim Shaikh, which implicated the applicant and corroborated fund flows. The APP maintained that the gravity of the organised cyber fraud and the need for custodial interrogation warranted rejection of the bail plea.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja recorded that the applicant joined the investigation only after being summoned by the Court but did not cooperate meaningfully. The Court referred to the Status Report dated 13.02.2025, which indicated that 29 separate complaints were registered against the applicant’s Rapipay virtual account.

The Court noted the fund flow and connections established between the applicant and co-accused through IP logs, WhatsApp communications, and financial transactions. It recorded: "The allegations against the applicant pertain to a serious and organized cyber fraud wherein the complainant was duped of Rs. 17,95,000, a substantial portion of which, Rs. 4,00,000, was traced to the applicant’s account."

The Court further recorded that in SFIO v. Aditya Sarda, SLP (Crl.) No. 13958/2023, the Supreme Court observed that economic offences require distinct seriousness and that anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly in such cases. It was observed: "These offences involve deep-rooted conspiracies causing significant loss to public funds and pose serious threats to the country’s financial health."

It was also noted that in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391, the Supreme Court clarified that absence of a need for custodial interrogation alone is not a sufficient ground for granting anticipatory bail. The Court observed that while custodial interrogation is a factor, the primary consideration should be the existence of a prima facie case and the gravity of the offence.

In view of these legal precedents and the material on record, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy. It observed: "While the applicant did join the investigation, the Investigating Officer has stated that he did not cooperate meaningfully. The applicant’s plea of innocence and allegations of misuse of his account are issues that require deeper investigation."

Also Read: Police Must Register Regular FIR And Not Zero FIR If Part Of Alleged Offence Occurred Within Its Jurisdiction | Mechanical Transfer Undermines Rights And Delays Justice : Delhi High Court

The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, recording: "In light of the discussion above, the present application is dismissed as bereft of merit. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of."

It was further recorded: "This Court has expressed only prima facie opinion on the merits of the allegations for the limited purpose to refuse or grant pre-arrest bail and if the applicant moves an application for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, Mr. Sougat Mishra, Mr. Rohit Shukla, and Ms. Nitika Duhan, Advocates.

For the State: Mr. Aman Usman, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Case Title: Shamik Shahbaz Shaikh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:3698

Case Number: Bail Appln. 731/2025

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

[Read/Download order]