Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH.SHAILENDER MALIK, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT), CBI-21: ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW
DELHI
Sourav Gill vs. CBI
Bail Matters 02/2026
FIR No. RC-2312025S0005
PS : CBI/IOD/New Delhi
O R D E R
1. This is second application moved by accused/applicant Sourav
Gill seeking anticipatory bail. First anticipatory bail application of the
accused/applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
16.12.2025.
Facts
2. Facts necessary for disposal of present bail application are that
on the basis of source information, FIR/RC of the present case was
registered at International Operation Division of CBI on 18.08.2025 for
offence u/s 61 r/w 318, 336, 338, 339 and 340 of BNS 2023 as well as u/s
66D of I.T. Act 2000 against accused persons namely Jigar Ahmad,
Himanshu Jain, Prakash Kaushal, Saurabh Gill and others. It is alleged
that accused Jigar Ahmad, Himanshu Jain, Prakash Kaushal, Saurabh Gill,
Akshay Mahajan etc. in criminal conspiracy with each other as well as
with certain unknown persons have been operating a network of trans-
national cyber enabled financial crime by way of running illegal call centre
at New Delhi, Punjab and other parts of India since 2023 and targeting US
citizens online under pseudonymous identities and subjecting them with
_____________________________________________________________________
Sourav Gill vs. CBI Page No.1
-- 1 of 11 --
tech fraud/impersonation fraud/theft. It is alleged that US citizens were
being targeted online, through pop up messages blocking their computer
screens and displaying a number to be contacted for resolution. When
victims contacted on given numbers, accused persons under
pseudonymous identities of officers of IRS, SSA, FBI and other agencies
falsely informed victims that their bank accounts have been compromised,
as a result of identity theft and their retirement and investment accounts
held at different financial institutions were prone to risk. Such victims
were required to carry out verification of their bank accounts else they
would risk losing their funds. Accused persons induced the victims to
liquidate their accounts and transfer their financial assets.
3. It is further alleged that accused persons would secure the
remote access of computer system of the victims through remote access
apps like “Ultraviewer” and “AnyViewer” and then induced the US
national victims that they would withdrew money from their accounts and
transfer the same to unchained accounts or deposited the same in the form
of crypto currencies, BTC or in crypto accounts provided by the accused.
In this way accused persons have defrauded the US victims to the tune of
40 million US Dollars including two named US victims. It is also alleged
that US victims had been contacted online by virtual telephone numbers
855-518-3497, 425-606-3122, 425-954-8632,, 425-331-5263, 530-746-
8609 and 714-364-3370 as well as IP addresses 110.235.217.11,
110.235.217.40, 110.235.217.41, 103.106.30.55, 160.202.38.61,
146.196.33.6, 106.219.155.203, 106.221.109.195, 223.233.83.38,
_____________________________________________________________________
Sourav Gill vs. CBI Page No.2
-- 2 of 11 --
223.233.83.162, 103.72.170.243, 103.72.170.244, 112.196.93.109 and
112.196.93.107. Certain IP addresses 110.235.217.11, 110.235.217.40,
110.235.217.41, 103.106.30.55, 160.202.38.61, 146.196.33.6,
106.219.155.203, 106.221.109.195, 223.233.83.38, 223.233.83.162 were
assigned by the Indian service providers and were operational from New
Delhi during the relevant period. It is mentioned that the IP addresses
103.72.170.243, 103.72.170.244, 112.196.93.109 and 112.196.93.107 were
assigned by Indian service providers in favour of M/s Digikaps the Future
of Digital, a proprietary concern of accused Saurav Gill and internet lease
lines against these IP addresses are installed at Global Tower, Opp. Khalsa
College of Women, GT Road, Amritsar, Punjab since 13.03.2023.
4. After the registration of the present case searches were
conducted at the premises of M/s Digikaps the Future of Digital at
Amritsar and during the search 34 accused persons were found working in
that illegal call centre and different digital devices were seized during
search. Accused however is not among those who are arrested from said
call centre. It is alleged that fake documents impersonating as officers of
Federal Trade Commission, USA was prepared to induce US victims on
the basis of such fake/false documents and thereby those victims were
induced to liquidate a portion of his stocks from Charles Schwabe into
cash and deposited the same at Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase.
Facts against accused/applicant Sourav Gill
5. As per the reply of IO Insp. Gaurav Malik, it is stated that
applicant/accused in conspiracy with other accused persons played key
_____________________________________________________________________
Sourav Gill vs. CBI Page No.3
-- 3 of 11 --
role in setting up of illegal call centre and was involved in day to day
operations of same. It is stated that during investigation documents related
to installation of internet lease lines at the said illegal call centre were
collected which revealed that the same were installed in the premises under
the name of M/s Digikaps the Future of Digital, which is proprietary
concern of accused/applicant. It also revealed in the investigation that
immediately after busting of said illegal call centre, accused/applicant and
his wife fled from their house and switched off his mobile phone to evade
his whereabouts. Since accused/applicant was not found at his native
place too, as such notice dated 26.08.2025 was sent to his email ID and
notices dated 29.08.2025, 06.09.2025 were served through brother of
applicant asking the applicant to join the investigation, however he
deliberated avoid his presence and did not join the investigation.
6. It is further mentioned in para 8 of the reply of CBI that IP
address no.103.72.170.243, 103.72.170.244, 112.196.93.109 and
112.196.93.107 was assigned in favour of M/s Digikap the Future of
Digital, which is a proprietary concern of applicant/accused Sourav Gill
and internet lease lines against these IP addresses were installed at Global
Tower, GT Road, Amritsar since 13.03.2023. It is further mentioned in the
reply that the custodial interrogation of the accused is required as the flow
of proceeds of crime, which was routed through crypto currency, is to be
ascertained and the call centre where from cyber crime was committed was
in the name of applicant/accused.
_____________________________________________________________________
Sourav Gill vs. CBI Page No.4
-- 4 of 11 --
Grounds of bail of accused Sourav Gill
7. It is stated in the bail application that accused/applicant is
young married person of 33 years and was born and brought up in Amritsar
and has no criminal antecedents. It is stated that applicant is educated upto
12th and someone known to him suggested that there is a very good scope
in the business of cyber cafe. Accordingly in the beginning of 2023
applicant took a premises on rent and started a cyber cafe under the name
and style of M/s Digicaps and Future of Digital as proprietor near Khalsa
College Women, GT Road, Amritsar, Punjab. It is stated that applicant
hired one Gurmail Singh for the purposes of running and operation of
above said cyber cafe on oral contract and Gurmail Singh was required to
pay Rs.50,000/- per week to the applicant. It is stated that said cyber cafe
was in full control of Gurmail Singh and applicant was having no
knowledge about the operation of said cyber cafe.
8. It is stated that on 30.08.2025, 2/3 CBI officials came at the
residence of applicant and gave a notice dated 29.08.2025 to his father for
appearance of applicant on 02.09.2025. In between applicant also arrived
there and informed the CBI officials that since his father is not well, he
cannot appear before them at Delhi and he may asked questions on that
day itself. Accordingly CBI officials interrogated the applicant for about
2/3 hours. It is stated that on 06.09.2025 CBI officials came to his
residence again and handed over a notice dated 06.09.2025 for appearance
before the IO on 10.09.2025. On that day also applicant was interrogated
and he provided each and every information to them. It is stated that
_____________________________________________________________________
Sourav Gill vs. CBI Page No.5
-- 5 of 11 --
applicant came to know that in reply to bail applications of some other
accused, CBI has claimed that applicant is yet to be arrested and thus he is
having serious apprehension of arrest in this case. It is stated that several
co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail and co-accused
Jigar Ahmed has been granted default bail as CBI failed to file the charge
sheet within the statutory period.
Submissions
9. I have heard Sh.S.K. Sharma, ld. Counsel for accused/
applicant, Sh.Amjad Ali, ld. PP for the CBI as well as gone through the
reply, police file and the documents as pointed out by the investigating
officer.
Analysis and Conclusion
10. Before this court proceed to examine the facts and evidence as
referred to in the reply of CBI, let us first examine the legal position with
regard to relief of anticipatory bail. It is settled law that while considering
the question of anticipatory bail, court has to take into consideration the
nature of accusation, nature of evidence in support thereof, character of the
accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused as well as
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at the trial and
the apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Since it is an
extraordinary relief, larger interest of public/State are also to be kept in
mind while exercising such judicial discretion. At the same time, court of
law has also to keep in mind the broad object of the provisions to grant
anticipatory bail, u/s 438 of Cr.PC (482 of BNSS) is to safeguard personal
_____________________________________________________________________
Sourav Gill vs. CBI Page No.6
-- 6 of 11 --
liberty of an individual, in a case where there is sufficient material
showing accused having been falsely implicated.
11. As such while deciding the anticipatory bail application, a
delicate balance is required to be established between safeguarding
personal liberty of an individual as well as societal interest. It has been
laid down repeatedly by Superior Courts that power to grant anticipatory
bail is an extraordinary power, therefore same has to be exercised
sparingly, only in exceptional cases after due application of judicial mind
in relation to nature and gravity of accusation, possibility of accused
fleeing away, conduct of the accused and other factors.
12. As noted above reference can be given of numerous
judgments such as Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others vs. State of
Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, State vs. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187,
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharasthra (2011) 1 SCC
694, Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar (2012) 4 SCC 379, wherein it
was laid down that relief of anticipatory bail cannot be claimed as a matter
of right. Nature of gravity of accusation, conduct, exact role of accused
must be properly comprehended. It has been laid down that grant of
anticipatory bail in serious offences required that court must record
exceptional reasons before granting such relief.
13. Being guided by above legal proposition, if we examine the
facts of the present case, it is undisputed fact that the call centre by name
M/s Digikap the Future of Digital, was a proprietorship firm in the name of
applicant/accused Sourav Gill. It has come in the investigation that the
_____________________________________________________________________
Sourav Gill vs. CBI Page No.7
-- 7 of 11 --
VoIP calls made to the victims (US nationals), who were defrauded by
cyber crime, connect with the IP addresses as mentioned in para 8 of the
reply of the CBI, installed in the same call centre/cyber cafe, which is
owned by the applicant/accused.
14. Now coming to the issue that applicant/accused was not
involved in operation of such call centre or some Gurmail Singh was hired
by applicant/accused for day to day operation of the said call centre/ cyber
cafe. That aspect is something which need to be investigated. It is
important to note that applicant/accused is also resident of Amritsar, where
the said call centre was operational. During investigation search was
conducted at the said call centre and around 145 electronic devices such as
computer, hard discs, mobile phones, laptops and other material were
seized from there. It came in para 9 of the reply of the CBI that during
search it was found that fake documents were being used by persons
working in that call centre who were impersonating as officers of Federal
Trade Commission, Washington, USA to induce US victims. Certain false
documents were retrieved from the computer system seized from that call
centre. These material certainly point out towards the applicant/accused
being involved as it is matter of record that he was the owner of the said
call centre and IP addresses were also in his name. Now the fact that
whether applicant/accused was actually part of any conspiracy or not and
whether he was in any manner involved in the commission of cyber crime,
is something which cannot be ascertained without joining him in the
investigation.
_____________________________________________________________________
Sourav Gill vs. CBI Page No.8
-- 8 of 11 --
15. Applicant/accused in his bail application has taken up the plea
that on 30.08.2025, 2/3 persons claiming themselves to be CBI officials
visited his home and questioned the parents of the accused and thereafter
interrogated accused/applicant. This fact has been denied by the ld. PP for
the CBI. It is submitted that CBI officials have never interrogated the
accused/applicant uptil now, rather it is mentioned in para 10 of the reply
that immediately when the illegal call centre by name M/s Digikap the
Future of Digital was busted by investigating agency on 20.08.2025,
applicant/accused along wiuth his wife fled away from their mobile and
switched off their mobile phone. It is mentioned thereafter notice was
served to applicant/accused on 26.08.2025 by email and thereafter on
29.08.2025 and 06.09.2025.
16. Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that applicant/accused is
ready to join the investigation and even after withdrawal of the first
anticipatory bail application, no notice was served to applicant/accused to
join the investigation.
17. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions as
made at bar, it is very much evident that since the filing of first
anticipatory bail application, accused was well aware that he is required by
the investigating agency. In the reply to the first anticipatory bail
application, similar facts were mentioned. As such there was no reason for
the investigating agency to serve him fresh notice, subsequent to the
dismissal of first anticipatory bail application as withdrawn. Rather it was
for applicant/accused to either join the investigation physically or by
_____________________________________________________________________
Sourav Gill vs. CBI Page No.9
-- 9 of 11 --
sending the reply/notice to CBI for his willingness as well as the grounds
of his defence. Applicant/accused has rather avoided to take any legal
recourse. It is important to note that there is no fresh ground taken in this
second anticipatory bail application, since 16.12.2025 when first
anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn.
18. It was also argued by ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant
that there is no evidence on the record showing that applicant/accused
received any monetary benefits in respect of alleged crime.
19. No doubt as on now there may not be any evidence showing
any money flow/monetary trail in the bank accounts of the applicant/
accused. However it is to be borne in mind that cyber crime is not
committed by banking transactions, particularly in the present case where
it is in the allegations that victims/US nationals were defrauded to the tune
of USD 40 million as per the details given in para 5 of the reply and
thereafter that money was created in Coin time crypto exchange during the
period form 22.07.2024 to 11.09.2024, which was subsequently further
transferred in the form of crypto currency BTC in different crypto wallet
numbers as per details given in para 5 of the reply. In such facts, without
joining the applicant/accused in the investigation, the money flow if any
attributable to accused/applicant, cannot be ascertained.
20. Therefore keeping in view the totality of the facts and
circumstances, fact that applicant/accused has been the owner of the call
centre where from the cyber crime was committed, this court is of the
considered view that custodial interrogation of the accused is certainly
_____________________________________________________________________
Sourav Gill vs. CBI Page No.10
-- 10 of 11 --
required for unfolding relevant facts. As such the extraordinary relief of
anticipatory bail cannot be granted to applicant/accused. Hence
application stands dismissed.
Announced in the open Court (Shailender Malik)
on 13.01.2026 Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI-21
RACC/New Delhi
_____________________________________________________________________
Sourav Gill vs. CBI Page No.11
-- 11 of 11 --