Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: FIR No. 30/2026
	PS Cyber Crime South West Delhi
	State Vs. Shahbaz Ali
1/7
Bail Matters 721/2026
STATE OF DELHI Vs. SHAHBAZ ALI
FIR No. 30/2026
PS CYBER NEW DELHI
U/sec 318(4) BNS
13.04.2026
This is an application under section 483 BNSS for grant of regular bail moved
on behalf of accused/applicant Shahbaz Ali.
Present: Sh. Gyan Prakash Ray, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Keshav Raj, Sh. Aryan Arora, Sh. Rishav Raj and Sh.
Abhijit Mishra, Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
IO HC Jitender is present with case file.
Arguments on application are heard. Record perused.
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 16.03.2026. It is further argued that
accused/applicant is neither the main accused nor a beneficiary of the alleged
offence. It is further argued that evidence is in digital nature and same has
already been recovered. It is further argued that no effective notice under
section 35(3) BNSS was served upon accused/applicant prior to his arrest. It is
further argued that no grounds of arrest have been served upon
accused/applicant. It is further submitted that investigation against
accused/applicant has already been completed 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 of 7 --
FIR No. 30/2026
	PS Cyber Crime South West Delhi
	State Vs. Shahbaz Ali
2/7
1.1 Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant has relied upon
Chandrashekhar Bimsen Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2025 SCC
OnLine Bom 5357, Virendra Khanna Vs. State of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine
Kar 5032, Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors (2022) 7
SCC 124, Ashish Dave Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr 2026 INSC 244,
Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2025) 5 SCC 799, Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate
of Enforcement, Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI 2012 SCC 40, Dataram Singh Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 22, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar AIR
2014, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1322 and Union of
India Vs. K. A. Najeeb to fortify his arguments.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
2. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has vehemently opposed the
application stating that as per reply filed by IO, present FIR was registered as a
complaint vide NCRP Acknowledgment 20801260003147 has been received at
South West Cyber Police Station from Kamal Kishore Sahu wherein he alleged
regarding online financial fraud of Rs. 91,000/-.
2.1 During investigation, beneficiary details of transactions were
obtained and it revealed that complainant transferred Rs. 91,000/- from his
account and other sources in transactions to the account numbers provided by
fraudsters. During interrogation, it was found that alleged calling No. 91-
6296713114 which was used to contact the complainant was used in Redmi
Mobile having IMEI 86502104167502 and mobile numbers i.e., 6294106281
and 8293405258 were found running in the alleged mobile phone in Kolkata.
Thereafter, police team reached at 3rd Floor, Katju Nagar, PS Jadavpur, Kolkata
where an office was found located operating under the name and style of “Love
Life Solutions” which was being run by accused/applicant Shahbaz Ali.
-- 2 of 7 --
FIR No. 30/2026
	PS Cyber Crime South West Delhi
	State Vs. Shahbaz Ali
3/7
Accused/applicant was found to be operating the office with the assistance of
seven women employees. Notice u/sec 35(3) BNSS was served upon
accused/applicant to join the investigation. As he was highly suspicious person
and if time was provided, accused/applicant might destroy all the digital
evidence and even inform the co-accused, accused/applicant was interrogated
but he did not cooperate during the investigation. He failed to disclose about
the mule account used by them to obtain the cheated amount and hence, he was
arrested in this case on 16.03.2026 itself.
2.2 During interrogation, accused disclosed that persons namely
Liton and Samardeep Singh and other co-accused were running the said office
and Samardeep knew all the details about the Liton. During further
investigation, mobiles phone i.e., MI phone having IMEI No.
865021041675026 having mobile numbers 6294106281 and 8293405258
Redmi Blue Colour having IMEI No. 868145046762237 having mobile No.
9635001253, 8609954987, mobile phone (Redmi Light Sky Blue) having IMEI
No. 860882068040104 having mobile number 9907282950. Redmi light sky
blue having mobile number 8348799675 which was used in the commission of
crime was recovered from the possession of accused and other articles which
were recovered from the possession of accused/applicant. 17 mobile phones, 1
mule SIM card, 1 stamp, 20 incriminating register and other documents were
recovered from the possession of accused/applicant.
2.3 It is further submitted that investigation is at initial stage and 11
NCRP complaints have been pending against the suspect mobile number and
account numbers and there is every likelihood that accused/applicant may
hamper with the investigation, if released on bail. Hence, it is prayed that
present application may be dismissed in the interest of justice.
-- 3 of 7 --
FIR No. 30/2026
	PS Cyber Crime South West Delhi
	State Vs. Shahbaz Ali
4/7
3. Submissions heard. Record perused. I have also gone through the
case laws relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
4. Allegations against accused/applicant are serious in nature. He is
found to be running an office under the name and style of Love Life Solution.
He was running the call center with the help of co-accused Liton and
Samardeep and seven female tele callers were also found in the said office
when the police reached there. Complainant used a dating application and he
received an SMS asking for his mobile number. Complainant contacted the said
mobile number and the call was answered by a woman projected herself as
Kavya from Mumbai. She informed the complainant that they can arrange dates
with girls through their app for the complainant and complainant was asked to
pay registration fee of Rs. 22,000/-. On subsequent, occasions complainant was
asked to pay further amount which ultimately came upto Rs. 91,100/-.
Therefore, from bare perusal of the FIR, it is clear that it is a case of cheating
and cyber fraud involving several accused persons. The alleged calling numbers
i.e., 6296713114, 6294106281, 8293405258, 9635001253 and 8609954987 and
alleged devices i.e., redmi light sky blue having IMEI No. 860882068040104
which was used in the commission of crime was recovered from the possession
of accused/applicant.
4.1 It is argued on behalf of accused/applicant that no effective notice
under section 35(3) BNSS was served upon accused/applicant and accused was
directed to appear at PS Cyber Cell at Delhi but he was arrested on the same
day without providing an opportunity to the accused to comply with the notice.
It is a matter of record that notice was served upon the accused on 16.03.2026
with the direction to appear at Delhi but he was arrested at 03:00 PM. The
arrest was effected in view of the dubious activities of the accused, recovery
-- 4 of 7 --
FIR No. 30/2026
	PS Cyber Crime South West Delhi
	State Vs. Shahbaz Ali
5/7
from his office, the presence of seven female telecallers, multiple registers,
several mobile phones and the numbers which were used in contacting the
victims. It is not that case that IO did not comply with section 35(3) BNSS but
he exercise discretion while arresting the accused on that day itself in view of
the circumstances and the recovery effected on that day to rule out the scope of
accused fleeing away from justice and further tampering with the evidence. So,
I find no merit in the argument that IO has not complied with section 35(3)
BNSS in this case.
4.2 It is also argued on behalf of accused that he did not personally
any act of cheating by interacting with the complainant. I do not find any merit
in this argument as there is no legal requirement that for the commission of
cheating through Cyber fraud, the accused has to personally interact with the
complainant to induce him. Most of the time, victims are being approached by
the tele callers whereas the beneficiaries are the mastermind, who are running
the whole racket. Accused/applicant is directly involved in the commission of
crime. Mobile phone as well as mobile numbers which were used in the
commission of crime were recovered from the possession of accused/applicant.
Chat between the co-accused persons and accused/applicant clearly established
his role in cyber fraud. Investigation is at initial stage, cheated amount is yet to
be recovered. There is every likelihood that accused/applicant may hamper the
investigation and influence the witnesses, if released on bail.
4.3 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.
4.4 Considering the fact that Cyber frauds are increasing day by day
and it is a tedious task to complete the investigation as it not only requires
-- 5 of 7 --
FIR No. 30/2026
	PS Cyber Crime South West Delhi
	State Vs. Shahbaz Ali
6/7
technical expertise but requires commutation time as several frauds are being
done from various places throughout in India. The manner in which offence has
been committed, it is apparent that accused is a part of group of persons
committing Cyber frauds.
4.5 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.
4.6 There is no quarrel qua the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Higher
Courts in judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant but the
fact of the matter is granting bail is a discretion which is to be exercised by the
Court as per facts and circumstance of each case. It is the case of the
prosecution that accused/applicant committed the offence with assistance of his
seven female employees as well as co-accused Liton and Samardeep Singh and
duped around 500 victims. Total 17 mobile phones, one office fake stamp in the
name of Lover Life Solution, some SIM cards and 20 registers containing data
of victims were also recovered from the possession of accused/applicant.
Allegations against accused/applicant are serious in nature. Co-accused persons
are yet to be apprehended. Cheated amount is yet to be recovered. Total 11
NCRP complaints have been acknowledged against the suspected mobile
numbers and account numbers.
4.7 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 Shahbaz Ali. Therefore, the application moved on behalf of
the accused/applicant Shahbaz Ali 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
-- 6 of 7 --
FIR No. 30/2026
	PS Cyber Crime South West Delhi
	State Vs. Shahbaz Ali
7/7
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
13.04.2026
-- 7 of 7 --