Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: FIR No. 30/2023 State Vs Tayyab Page 1 of 3
FIR No. 30/2023
U/s 420 IPC
State v Tayyab
PS Cyber Police Station, New Delhi.
07.09.2024
Present:- Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld. PP for the State with IO.
Ms. Sheela Aswani, Ld. Counsel for applicant/
accused Tayyab.
1. This order shall dispose of application seeking
anticipatory bail on behalf of applicant/accused Tayyab.
2. It is contended on behalf of accused that
applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the present case and he has nothing to do with the alleged
offence. That applicant has no previous criminal antecedents.
That applicant/accused has never been served with any notice to
join the investigation. That nothing evidentiary material is on
record to connect the applicant with any of the alleged offences.
That nothing incriminating has come on record during
investigation except the disclosure statement which is not
admissible in law. That allegations levelled against the applicant
are false, frivolous, baseless and concocted. That complete case
of the prosecution is based on documents and hence, there are no
chances of applicant/accused influencing the witnesses or
tampering with evidence. That applicant/accused undertakes to
join the investigation as and when called by IO. It is submitted
that applicant/accused may be admitted in anticipatory bail.
3. Written reply to the bail application is filed on behalf
of State contending that investigation of the present case is
continued. Taht applicant in collusion with their other
-- 1 of 3 --
FIR No. 30/2023 State Vs Tayyab Page 2 of 3
accomplices have cheated Rs.1,35,000/- from the complainant in
a fraudulently manner. That applicant/accused did not join the
investigation despite service of notice under Section 41-A Cr.PC.
That cheated amount of complainant is yet to be recovered. That
offence of Cybercrime are serious in nature. That to unearth the
organized crime of this cyber fraud, the custodial interrogation of
the applicant/accused is required. That applicant has no
permanent address in Delhi. It is submitted that present
application of applicant/accused be dismissed.
4. It is argued on behalf of accused that State does not
have any concrete evidence against accused. It is submitted that
simply on the basis of somebody named by an accused in a case,
he cannot be implicated in the case. It is submitted that in this
manner, accused may name anyone. It is submitted that no notice
was received by accused/applicant. It is submitted that only upon
affixation of proceedings under Section 82 Cr.PC, applicant came
to know about the present case against him. It is submitted that
application should be allowed and applicant/accused is ready to
join the investigation.
5. On behalf of State, it is submitted that
applicant/accused has been evading his arrest and is now declared
as an absconder. It is submitted that cheated amount of
complainant is yet to be recovered. It is further submitted that
notice and process under Section 82 Cr.PC were executed
properly. It is submitted that application should be dismissed.
6. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and
perused the record carefully.
7. At the time of deciding anticipatory bail, amongst
-- 2 of 3 --
FIR No. 30/2023 State Vs Tayyab Page 3 of 3
other parameters, one of the parameter to be considered by court
is that if or not accused is a flight risk. In the present matter, it is
contended on behalf of applicant/accused that he did not receive
any notice/process. Applicant/accused had mentioned his address
in the affidavit along with the application. Said address is
compared with the notice and other process issued to accused.
Address in affidavit and in process are similar. Therefore,
applicant/accused cannot take shelter under this argument that he
did not receive any notice or process once it is shown from
record that address on which process was executed is same which
applicant mentions to be his address. Therefore, not joining the
proceedings and concealing himself is an indicator of intention of
accused to evade the process of law and it makes him a flight
risk.
8. Further, one of the accused has disclosed that it was
applicant/accused who used to cheat people through various
means of cyber fraud and require bank accounts to siphon of the
cheated amount. It is a matter of record that certain transactions
have taken place in banking channels. Said disclosure is made by
holder of one such bank account. Therefore, argument of
applicant/accused that on simply being named by co-accused, no
investigation should be conducted, is without any force.
9. In view of the above discussion, the application of
the applicant/accused is dismissed. Copy dasit.
(Chander Jit Singh)
Roster Judge/ASJ-03/PHC/ND/06.09.2024
-- 3 of 3 --