While analyzing Section 41(1)(b) CrPC. it was observed that when a person is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for less than 7 years or which may extend to 7 years with or without fine, not only has the Police officer to be satisfied that the accused has committed the said offence, but he is also required to be satisfied that the arrest of the accused is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence, or for proper investigation of the offence. The aforesaid has been the premise adopted by the Delhi High Court while adjudicating the case of Bhanu Prakash Singh v. State (G.N.C.T OF DELHI) [BAIL APPLN. 1644/2021] which was decided by the single judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta on 4th June 2021.
The petitioner had been accused of running a fake call Centre who were involved in cybercrime whereby they were posing themselves to be Amazon Tech supporters through VOIP calls over phone and engaging in cheating USA based victims. One of the US resident victims had joined the investigation and stated that he has been cheated by the present centre for an amount of USD 6683.34. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that Petitioner had clarified that he is working with M/s. Deans Infratech Pvt. Ltd. which has its offices in Delhi, Mumbai and are engaged in the road construction business, which in fact has been verified by the investigating officer. Hence the petitioner is sought to be falsely implicated in this case. He also contended that Since the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with sentence upto seven years imprisonment, the petitioner was required to be given a notice under Section 41-A of the CrPC. in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2014) 8 SCC 273 Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. Whereas Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the petitioner is the king pin of the fake Centre being run by virtue of which several victims in USA were cheated by way of VOIP calls and presented proofs in the form of email-id, whatsaap chats and screenshots and has adequately thrown light on the facts that such a denial of anticipatory bail is not barred under Section 41 of the CrPC as well.
Hence, after taking into consideration the facts and arguments presented, the court was of the opinion that the petitioner in no way should be granted an anticipatory bail even on the basis of medical records of the petitioner which sufficiently show that lack f any co-morbidities that endanger the petitioner’s life during the Covid-19 situation. The exact words as stated by the quote were “Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently relied on the fact that the petitioner is working with M/s. Deans Infratech Pvt. Ltd. with its offices at Delhi and Mumbai and the company is engaged in the road construction business. however, the petitioner’s employment as Business Development Manager with M/s. Deans Infratech Pvt. Ltd. does not lead to an inference that the petitioner is not running a Centre from which 15 employees and two other co-accused have already been arrested. Even on the medical condition this Court finds that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is suffering from any co-morbidity which is likely to affect him due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 11. In view of the discussion above, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed.”