Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Application No. 1208/2021
State Vs. Rishi Mohan
FIR No. 74 /2021
PS Sarojini Nagar
U/sec. 420/468/471/120B IPC & 66(d) IT Act
10.06.2021
Vide order No.9871-9900/Bail/Judl/Prin./D&SJ/NDD/2021
dated 30.04.2021, the undersigned has been deputed for duty to
hear and dispose of fresh bail/urgent criminal applications
and pending bail applications pertaining to New Delhi Distt.
Matter is taken up through VC.
Present: Sh. Ravinder Bhatti, Ld. Addl. PP for the State
through VC.
Sh. Rahul Malik, Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant
through VC.
IO Insp. Satinder Sangwan is present through VC.
Ld. Defence Counsel has prayed for bail on the
ground that accused has been falsely implicated in this case and
he has no concern with the commission of offence and the
amount which was allegedly went into his account was stated to
be transferred to co-accused Amrit Raj.
In this case, it is alleged that complainant was
studying IELTS test practice, a English Language test via online
British Council test practices and the associates of the
accused/applicant approached the complainant through whatsapp
message with a promise to provide certificate and also by
impersonating that they were running a company which assured
of providing the certificate to such students/applicants. Under
this promise, a sum of Rs. 11,70,000/- were fraudulently obtained
from the complainant which went into five different accounts.
So far as role of the accused/applicant Rishi Mohan is
-- 1 of 2 --
concerned, he is one of the constituents in the entire commission
of the offence and a sum of Rs. 70,000/- went into his account
which was immediately transferred by him to main accused
Amrit Raj, who is in custody and also stated to be the master
mind of the commission of the entire offence and for the
commission of this offence, international number of Neitherland
for the purpose of sending whatsapp message was used.
Investigation in this case is still pending and amount is yet to be
recovered and accused/applicant is stated to be required for
custodial interrogation.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
role of the accused/applicant being one of the associates in the
commission of the entire offence and the submissions made, I do
not find any ground to grant protection by way of anticipatory
bail to the accused/ applicant. Hence, the same is dismissed.
Copy of this order be given dasti.
It is certified that proceedings conducted through
VC on CISCO WEBEX, the quality of audio and video were
clear and uninterrupted to the satisfaction of the participants.
(Sanjay Khanagwal)
ASJ/NDD/PHC/New Delhi
10.06.2021
-- 2 of 2 --