While hearing a bail plea of an accused alleged to be involved in a massive financial fraud perpetrated by impersonating officials from the government department of the RBI, CBDT, and likewise, the Delhi High Court ruled the mere fact that accused applicant has no financial reserves from his past earnings to pay the complainant without prejudice to his rights to establish his innocence, he cannot be held culpable of the offences attributed to him as the same are matter of trial. The Court therefore granted bail to the applicant based on the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the right to a speedy trial, finding that the trial has not progressed beyond the charge-framing stage, with 37 witnesses yet to be examined, and the applicant has been in custody for over 14 months.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences attributable to the applicant is only three years, and continued preventive detention merely on the speculative ground that he would abscond would be a travesty of justice. The Bench also noted that the applicant is not named in the FIR, and his implication arises solely from disclosure statements of co-accused, which are per se not admissible unless backed by any recovery or corroborative evidence. Additionally, the Bench found that there was no money trail unearthed linking him to the alleged offence, and no funds were received in his account, and the co-accused managing finances are already on bail, though by way of entering into a compromise with the complainant.
Moreover, looking at the fact that the complainant is a seasoned legal professional who continued to interact and make voluntary payments over an extended period on his own volition, and had even settled with some co-accused, which suggested the entire attempt was leveraged to criminal proceedings for financial recovery, the Bench thought it fit to grant concession of bail to the applicant as he has no criminal antecedents and his family is found to be living in literal starvation and penury in his absence. At the same time, the Bench made it clear that it has not expressed any observation on the merits of the case either way and the same shall not have any bearing on the pending trial also.
As per the brief background of the case, the complainant, claiming to be a retired Provident Fund Commissioner, has been a victim of a massive financial fraud that began in April 2018 in a total loss exceeding Rs. 3.5 crores, perpetrated by a network of individuals who repeatedly impersonated officials from NPCI, RBI, SBI, Income Tax Department, and others. The fraudulent activities commenced when the complainant received an email claiming to be from NPCI, which falsely stated that a sum of Rs. 17.45 lacs was due to the complainant, and to release this amount, a payment of Rs. 35.91 thousand was requested in favour of an entity named RB Info Solutions.
After the complainant transferred the said amount, he received another letter purportedly from the Ministry of Finance demanding Rs. 1.71 lacs for the processing of the alleged policy amount. Believing these transactions to be legitimate and committed to the disbursing of funds, the complainant also transferred the said sum. It was alleged that fake government letterheads were also sent to mislead the complainant, demanding payments under the pretext of income tax dues, GST, and other bureaucratic procedures, and fraud escalated in 2019, when six post-dated cheques issued to the complainant totalling Rs. 3 crores allegedly issued by a Ministry of Finance, returned unpaid with reason that the signature did not match the account records.
The complainant was told that Rs. 4.80 crores was due to be transferred, and each demand led to more payments and no resolution. The complainant was sent dozens of fabricated letters, including government logos, rubber stamps, and even file numbers, to reinforce the deception. However, no actual fund transfer was done except for the token of Rs. 10,000. The complainant thus sought a thorough investigation into this large-scale organised financial crime to recover his defrauded sums and to prosecute the offenders.
Appearances:
Advocates Pankaj Sinha, Anastasia Gill, Priyanka Basyan, and Akash Verma, for the Petitioner
APP Aman Usman, and Advocates Saul Shukla, Ramandeep Singh, S. Barak, and Arun Kumar, for the Respondent