Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: FIR No. 55/2025
	PS Cyber South West
	State Vs. Naim
1/5
Bail Matters 405/2026
STATE OF DELHI Vs. NAIM
FIR No. 55/2025
PS CYBER NEW DELHI
PS CYBER SOUTH WEST NEW DELHI
U/sec 318(4)/319(2)/61(2) BNS
24.02.2026
This is first application under section 483 BNSS for grant of regular bail
moved on behalf of accused/applicant Naim.
Present: Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. (Substitute) Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Charul Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
Sh. Prateek Sharma, Ld. Counsel for complainant alongwith
complainant.
IO SI Opendar Singh is present.
Reply to the application filed. Copy supplied.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED/APPLICANT
1. It is argued on behalf of accused/applicant that he has been
falsely implicated in this case and he is in JC since 18.09.2025. It is
further argued that total alleged amount involved in the present case is Rs.
3,95,000/- out of which Rs.1,48,000/- has already been recovered by the
investigating agency. It is further submitted that accused/applicant has not
received even a single penny of the alleged defrauded amount. It is
further submitted that accused/applicant is neither the direct beneficiary
nor the recipient of the alleged proceeds of crime. It is further submitted
that investigation against accused/applicant has already been completed
-- 1 of 5 --
FIR No. 55/2025
	PS Cyber South West
	State Vs. Naim
2/5
and charge sheet has already been filed and no useful purpose will be
served in keeping accused/applicant in custody. Hence, it is prayed that
accused/applicant be released on bail as he is ready to abide with any
condition imposed by the court.
1.1 Ld. Counsel has relied upon Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012)
1 SCC 40, Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 22
and Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 to fortify his
arguments.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
2. Per contra, Ld. (Substitute) Addl. PP for the State has
vehemently opposed the application stating that as per reply filed by IO,
present case was registered on the complaint of complainant Jitender Nath
Prasad wherein he alleged that he had been duped for a sum of Rs. 3.95
Lacs by impersonating as officials from Indian Overseas Bank on the
pretext of offering good offers on credit cars for Ex-Indian Overseas bank
employee. He further alleged that complainant installed .apk file on his
phone on 25.06.2025 and he was asked to enter his personal details as
well as the details of his bank accounts. Later complainant was assured by
the fraudsters that he would get his card within 2-3 days.
2.1 On 26.06.2025 complainant again got a call from the same
number and the person asked for more personal details and accordingly,
complainant provided the same, however, later on complainant realized
that Rs. 3,95,000/- were deducted from his Indian Overseas Bank
accounts in two transactions i.e., Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 3,50,000/-. Amount
of Rs. 3,50,000/- was transferred into one account of Prathama UP
-- 2 of 5 --
FIR No. 55/2025
	PS Cyber South West
	State Vs. Naim
3/5
Gramin Bank account No. 92420100049769. Some of the amount was
withdrawn through ATM in Kolkata and rest of the amount was further
transferred into 10 different bank accounts i.e., 1.) Prathama UP Gramin
Bank Account No. 92420100049796 2.) Central Bank of India Account
No. 86262200064918, 3.) Canara Bank Account No. 110241743590, 4.)
IDBI Bank Account No. 1528104000058089 in the name of Afsana. 5.)
IDBI Bank account No. 152810400058159, 6.) Central Bank of India
account No. 580751704, 7.) Canara Bank Account No. 8662200064918 in
the name of Rihanna. 8.) Central Bank of India Account No. 5810633312
in the name of Shabnam. 9.) Central Bank of India account No.
00000005808962374 in the name of Tabassum and 10.) UCO Bank
account No. 3060011046838 in the name of Nahid. All the ten accounts
were supplied by accused/applicant.
2.2 During course of investigation, notices under section 94
BNSS were served upon alleged banks and details were obtained. The
registered mobile numbers with the alleged bank accounts were found
running in the mobile device which was being used by accused/applicant
Naim. Later accused/applicant started using another device for the same
number having IMEI No. 356214463037603 and 356287463037609
which was recovered from his possession during his arrest.
2.3 At the instance of accused Naim, residence of co-accused
Shahrukh was identified and notice under section 35.3 BNSS was served
upon him. Accused Shahrukh joined the investigation, however, he did
not cooperate during investigation and accordingly, accused Shahrukh
was arrested in this case. Mobile phone also recovered from the
possession of accused/applicant and it contained the air ticket to Kolkata
-- 3 of 5 --
FIR No. 55/2025
	PS Cyber South West
	State Vs. Naim
4/5
and back for the period when the accounts were operated in Kolkata and
amount was withdrawn from ATMs in Koltaka.
2.4 It is further submitted that allegations against
accused/applicant are serious in nature. It is further submitted that there is
every likelihood that accused/applicant may commit further offence, if
released on bail.
Submissions heard. Record perused. I have also gone
through the judgments/orders relied upon by Ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant.
FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
3. Allegations against accused/applicant are serious in nature.
He played an active role with co-accused Shahrukh and duped the
complainant for the tune of Rs. 3.95 Lacs on the pretext of offering good
offers on credit cards for Ex-Indian Overseas bank employee. Initially the
cheated amount was transferred into Prathama UP Gramin Bank account
No. 92420100049796 of Afsana and thereafter, same was transferred in
many other accounts and later on the amount was withdrawn through
ATM. Total 69 complaints are found linked with ten bank accounts which
are involved in this case.
3.1 In Soukin Vs. The NCT State New Delhi Bail Application
No. 177/2024, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that all the cyber
offences are grave and serious in nature. They not only undermine the
individual dignity but also pose a serious challenge to the law
enforcement due to its clandestine and cross-jurisdictional nature.
-- 4 of 5 --
FIR No. 55/2025
	PS Cyber South West
	State Vs. Naim
5/5
3.2 Considering the fact that Cyber frauds are increasing day by
day and the manner in which offence has been committed, it is apparent
that accused is a part of group of persons committing Cyber frauds. He
not only cheated the complainant but also manipulated the accounts of
Afsana, Rihanna, Shabhnam, Tabassum and Nahid.
3.3 The judgment relied upon Ld. Counsel for the
accused/applicant is not applicable to the present case being
distinguishable on facts and moreover, granting bail is a discretion which
is to be exercised by the Court as per facts and circumstance of each case.
3.4 In Mansab Ali Vs. Irsan and Anr. 2003 SC 707, it has been
held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that since the jurisdiction is
discretionary, it is required to be exercised with great care and caution by
balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the
society in general.
3.5 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I
am of the considered view that no ground is made out for grant of bail to
accused/applicant Naim. Therefore, the application moved on behalf of
the accused/applicant Naim stands dismissed.
Nothing in this order shall tantamount to an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case during trial.
Pursuant to directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in SMWP (Criminal) No. 4/2021 titled as In Re Policy Strategy for
Grant of Bail as well as in compliance of judgment titled as Ajay Verma
Vs. State, copy of this order be sent to Jail Superintendent through e-mail.
Copy of this order be given dasti as prayed for.
(Dhirendra Rana)
Bail Roster Judge/
ASJ-07/PHC/New Delhi
24.02.2026
-- 5 of 5 --