New Delhi, Dec 30 (PTI): A Delhi court on Friday denied anticipatory bail to a 28-year-old man accused of cheating an IAS officer online while he was trying to book an appointment at a hospital in November.
Additional Sessions Judge Shailender Malik denied the relief to West Bengal resident Shyam Babu Giri, who was alleged to have cheated the officer posted in the Ministry of Commerce of Rs 33,400.
The judge, while noting that “extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail can be granted only in extraordinary circumstances”, said the details of the modus operandi by which the offence was committed was yet to be ascertained and, in such circumstance, “I do not find an extraordinary case of pre-arrest bail is made out.”
Related Posts:
“Merely accused/applicant willing to join the investigation, ‘ipso facto’ (by that very fact) it cannot be considered an extraordinary ground more particularly, in the facts of the present case where accused being resident of West Bengal is committing cyber crime and affecting people living in Delhi,” the judge said.
According to the complaint, the accused had cheated the complainant who wanted to book an appointment at a hospital. His private secretary accessed the hospital’s online portal and, it was alleged, on November 10, 2022, a fraudulent message with a link was received on WhatsApp for fixing the appointment. When the PS clicked the link, Rs 33,400 was debited from the officer’s account.
A case was filed and during the investigation it was discovered that between November 8 and 10, 2022 the accused had defrauded many people of Rs 11 lakh, police said.
The accused was detained in Kolkata where he was granted transit bail for joining the investigation in Delhi. However, the accused failed to appear before the police here following which a court issued a non-bailable arrest warrant against him.
The accused then sought anticipatory bail, saying he was a young man of 28 years and ready and willing to join the investigation.
He claimed before the court that the investigating officer had failed to investigate the matter and was harassing him for no plausible reason.
The prosecution opposed the bail application, insisting his custodial interrogation was required to unearth the conspiracy and understand the modus operandi of the crime.
