Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI MAHESHWARI,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-05,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
IA 02/2025 in CBI VS GURMEET SINGH
CBI Vs. DILIP DAYABHAI DHORIYANI
09.01.2026
Present: Ms. Saloni & Sh. Anoop Kumar, Ld. PPs for CBI.
Sh. Arpit Bamal, Ld. Counsel for applicant (through VC).
IO/ Inspector Narender Singh Rajawat in person.
ORDER
1. Vide this Order, this Court shall decide the application for grant
of bail, moved on behalf of the applicant/ accused, namely, Dilip
Dayabhai Dhoriyani (
hereinafter “Dilip”) u/S 480 Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Reply to the application was filed on
behalf of CBI, praying that the present application deserves to be
dismissed. The first application, seeking grant of bail to the applicant/
accused Dilip was dismissed on 18.10.2025.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the instant case i.e. FIR No.
RC 2212024E0022 was registered u/S 127, 308 and 318 of BNS, 2023
and Section 66D of IT Act, 2000, on 07.12.2024 in CBI, EO-III, New
Delhi against unknown person(s), based on source information. It is
alleged that the present case involves an elaborate cyber-fraud network
operating from India and abroad, targeting the Indian citizens through,
intimidation, digital surveillance and digital arrest to extort significant
sums of money from innocent victims. The fraudsters impersonated
Page No. 1 of 10
-- 1 of 10 --
themselves as officials from law enforcement agencies including CBI
officers, or government authorities, accusing the victims of
involvement in illegal activities such as drug trafficking, money
laundering, or human trafficking and keeping them under digital arrest.
3. The present case pertains to the alleged commission of fraud
with victim Sh. Anshu Mittal, S/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Mittal. It is
submitted that the victim Anshu Mittal is the Managing Director of
M/s Aristocraft International Pvt. Ltd. On 29.12.2023, he received a
call from mobile number 9931695216, where the caller impersonated
himself as a representative of FedEx Courier and falsely claimed that
his Aadhar card had been misused for illegal activities. The victim was
then connected via Skype with people pretending to be from Mumbai
Cyber Crime Branch and was illegally confined under the pretext of an
ongoing investigation against him. It is alleged that the fraudsters
digitally confined him, monitored him through his computer camera,
and threatened him with arrest and legal action and thus, kept the
victim under digital arrest from 29.12.2023 to 01.01.2024. Moreover,
the victim was fraudulently induced to transfer a sum of Rs. 48.56
lakhs from his accounts to the accounts specified by the fraudsters,
thereby cheating and extorting him, to the tune of Rs. 48.56 lakhs. The
details of the transactions made by the victim is as follows:-
a) Rs. 15,93,500/- was directly transferred by the victim, Anshu
Mittal, to Punjab National Bank Account No. 1656202100000894 held
in the name of M/s. Balaji Enterprises on 30.12.2023. On the same day,
the entire credited amount was dispersed through multiple IMPS
Page No. 2 of 10
-- 2 of 10 --
transfers to various bank accounts linked to individuals Mr. Vybhav K,
Mr. Santhosh T, Mr. Hashim PP, Mr. Dhaval Vasudevbhai Savadia,
and Mr. Vikram Bishnoi.
b) Rs. 32,63,275/- was directly transferred by the victim, Anshu
Mittal, through his company Aristocraft International Pvt. Ltd., to the
Punjab National Bank account number 1718202100001102 of M/s.
Sabir Enterprise on 01.01.2024. On the same day, the entire credited
amount was dispersed through multiple IMPS transfers to various bank
accounts linked to individuals Dinesh, Sabeena, Jayesh Sambhaji Hire,
Misba Taj, Fasil MM, Nirbhay Singh, Vikas, Gundariya Dipak
Jesabhai, Dinesh Bishnoi and Makardwaj Bagarty.
4. During the course of investigation, it has been revealed that a
substantial portion of the defrauded funds, was rapidly withdrawn by
the syndicate through a combination of cash withdrawals, cheque
clearances, and ATM transactions in India (approximately Rs.
41,00,000/-) and Dubai (approximately Rs. 6,00,000/-). These
transactions were primarily conducted via complex web of accounts
operating within the second and third layers of the laundering process,
typically within two days of the fraudulent activity.
5. As far as the role of the applicant/ accused Dilip is concerned, it
is submitted by the prosecution that he is a part of the financial arm of
the trans-national organised cyber-crime fraud network. It is further
submitted that on 30.12.2023, a sum of Rs. 4,99,999/- was credited to
the account of co-accused Dhaval Vasudevbhai Savadia from M/s
Page No. 3 of 10
-- 3 of 10 --
Balaji Enterprises, from the account of the complainant/ victim Anshu
Mittal. Further, on the same day, the entire amount was transferred to
the Punjab National Bank Account Number 5950005900000010, of
M/s Aditya Logistics. During the course of investigation, the co-
accused Dhaval Vasudevbhai Savadia revealed the name of the
applicant/ accused Dilip as being actively involved in the present case.
Further investigation revealed that the accused Dhaval used to transfer
money to the account of M/s Aditya Logistics, as per his prior
arrangement with accused/ applicant Dilip and then collected cash
from applicant Dilip, against the said money transfer, thereby,
laundering the entire proceeds of crime.
6. It is further alleged that the mobile number 7069571513, linked
with the PNB account of M/s Aditya Logistics has been found to be in
the possession of the applicant Dilip and the mobile phone containing
the said SIM, has been recovered from the possession of the applicant
Dilip, under his personal search memo. It is further alleged that the
account of M/s Aditya Logistics, which was being operated by the
applicant/ accused was used for receiving funds from co-accused
Dhaval and launder the amount into cash.
7. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused, by way of the instant
application, has argued that the applicant/accused deserves to be
granted bail on the following grounds:
a) The investigation
qua the accused is already complete and the
charge-sheet has been filed and thus, no further detention of the
Page No. 4 of 10
-- 4 of 10 --
accused is warranted merely on the ground that further investigation is
pending;
b) No recovery has been effected from the applicant and applicant’s
custodial interrogation has been concluded;
c) The role of the applicant is limited in the present case and there
is no proof of his active involvement in extortion, threat or coercion;
d) All the digital evidence, including mobile phone, and other
devices, allegedly connected to the offence has already been seized by
the investigating agency;
e) The applicant is a law-abiding citizen having deep roots in the
society and has no prior criminal antecedents;
f) Ld. Counsel for accused has also placed reliance upon the
following decisions:
→
Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 1 SCC 676.
→
Bhupender Kumar Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi in Bail Appln.
2290/2025.
→
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273.
→
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) SCC OnLine SC 2033.
→
Aayush Goyal Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, Delhi High Court dated
15.12.2025 (Bail Appln. No. 4385/2025).
8.
Per Contra, the application is opposed by CBI on the ground that
the active involvement and incriminating role of the accused has
clearly emerged in the present case. It is further submitted that if the
accused is enlarged on bail, at this stage, there is an apprehension that
the applicant/ accused would influence the witnesses, co-ordinate with
Page No. 5 of 10
-- 5 of 10 --
the other co-accused and facilitate destruction or concealment of
additional evidence, which is yet to be recovered. It is further
submitted that the present offence is a serious offence, pertaining to an
organized cyber-fraud and the gravity of the offence as well as the
manner of its commission, outweigh the right of personal liberty of the
accused in the present case.
9. Heard. Perused. Considered. The Court shall now deal with the
rival contentions raised by the parties and the decisions relied upon by
them, in support of their contentions.
10. The change of circumstance since the dismissal of the first bail
application, is that the charge-sheet in the present case has already
been filed and no further investigation is to be conducted
qua the
present accused. The investigation conducted so far clearly reveals that
the applicant is an active participant in a money laundering network of
a trans-national cyber-fraud syndicate. Moreover, the fact that the bank
account of M/s Aditya Logistics, the mobile number of which is linked
to the applicant/ accused, has been found in various complaints of
cyber-frauds all across the country, clearly points to the involvement of
the accused in a pan-India cyber-crime network.
11. The other contention raised on behalf of the accused is that his
role is only ancillary in nature and financial transactions were routed
through accounts associated with other co-accused and fin-tech
companies. It is submitted that the role of the applicant is limited to
Page No. 6 of 10
-- 6 of 10 --
operating the mobile number linked with the accounts and there is no
proof of his active involvement in extortion, threat or coercion.
However, the same is put to naught, based on the transfer of money
from the bank account of co-accused Dhaval to the account of M/s
Aditya Logistics, which is connected with the applicant/ accused.
Moreover, it is pertinent to note that in an offence like the present one,
involving multiple accused and many layers; the ownership of the bank
account is not the sole basis to decide the extent the role of the
accused. It has clearly transpired from the investigation conducted so
far that the applicant is operating the account of M/s Aditya Logistics
and the SIM and the Mobile device used for operating the account
were in his possession, and the applicant was receiving commission for
facilitating such transactions.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
P. Chidambaram Vs.
CBI, (2020) 13 SCC 337 has laid down the well-settled principles to be
considered for the grant of bail and the same are reproduced below:
“21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of
the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances
of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration
while considering an application for bail:
(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the
case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the
prosecution;
(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or
apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;
(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at
the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;
(iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations.”
Page No. 7 of 10
-- 7 of 10 --
13. It is a matter of record that the other co-accused are yet to be
apprehended and the entire extent of the conspiracy is yet to be
unearthed. There is a strong apprehension that if the accused is
enlarged on bail, he may alert the co-conspirators and may compromise
the investigation being carried out. The offence involved in the present
case pertains to a cyber-fraud, involving a network of cyber criminals,
operating in the garb of anonymity and lack of traceability. The
accused in the present case is an important link, in the larger chain, and
his involvement in the offence has been clearly brought to light.
14. Ld. Counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the recent
decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
Aayush Goyal case
(supra), wherein, the accused was granted bail. However, the case is
factually distinguishable from the present case on the ground that the
co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail and the entire
cheated amount had already been recovered and paid to the
complainant, which is not the situation in the present case. Similarly, in
the case of
State of Delhi Vs. Amit Sharma (FIR No. 90/2025, PS:
Special Cell dt. 21.07.2025) which is relied upon by the accused, Ld.
Sessions Court had granted bail considering that the entire cheated
amount
qua the applicant/ accused was frozen and refunded to the
complainant and the co-accused had also been granted bail.
15. Moreover, the reliance placed by Ld. Counsels for the accused in
the
Bhupender Kumar case (supra) is also misplaced on the ground that
the complainant had already settled the matter with some accused and
Page No. 8 of 10
-- 8 of 10 --
the supplementary charge-sheet also had been filed. Further, the
accused in the case had already suffered incarceration for more than a
year. Therefore, all the decisions strongly relied upon by Ld. Counsels
for the accused, are factually distinguishable.
16. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has voiced its serious
concern, regarding the widespread rise of digital arrest scams in
Suo
Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 3/2025 in Re: Victims of Digital
Arrest Related to Forged Documents. The entire conspiracy in the
present case is yet to be unearthed and further investigation is still
underway in this regard and in such circumstances, the apprehension
that the applicant may alert the other co-accused or facilitate in
destruction of additional evidence, which is yet to be recovered; cannot
be ruled out. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, while dealing with the
bail application in a cyber-fraud case titled as
Vineet Jhavar v. State of
NCT of Delhi in Bail Appln. 3700/2023, dated 06.12.2023, also
underlined the magnitude of such offences and made the following
observations:
“10. This Court notes that the modus operandi
employed by cyber criminals changes and evolves
every day. Sensitized to the plight of unsuspecting
individuals who fall victim to deceptive mobile
applications, the Courts have the responsibility to
address the grievances of those who, in their pursuit of
technology, end up being defrauded of their hard-
earned money. The app developers take advantage of
cyber-illiteracy of the people, who unknowingly give
access to their contacts and images to a mobile
application and its developer, which is then misused to
extort money from them. The personal details of the
innocent people are also being taken and misused for
committing fraud, as in the present case. The case in
hand serves as as illustration of how cyber-enabled
crimes are taking place in the present digital age
wherein the accused persons through a click bait link
allure people towards installing an application
Page No. 9 of 10
-- 9 of 10 --
commonly known as ‘APP’ in their mobile phones and
then based on this allurement, the cyber illiterate
common citizens download them or click the link
totally oblivious to the fraud which will stare them in
their eyes in a matter of few minutes or hours. The bait
of getting them short term loans on a click of a button
and defrauding them of their hard earned money is
nowadays common and the cyber illiteracy of common
citizens is being taken advantage of by such accused, as
prima facie in the present case......”.
17. Thus, in light of the above discussion, considering the totality of
facts and circumstances, the crucial role of the accused in the present
present cyber-fraud and the fact that the other co-accused are yet to be
apprehended, the bail application moved on behalf of the accused Dilip
Dayabhai Dhoriyani, stands dismissed.
18. Copy of this Order be given
dasti, as prayed for.
19. Nothing in this Order shall tantamount to any opinion, on the
merits of the case.
(Jyoti Maheshwari)
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-05
Rouse Avenue Courts Complex
New Delhi/09.01.2026
Page No. 10 of 10
-- 10 of 10 --