Prateek Arora v. CBI Through Its Director

1. This is an application filed seeking grant of anticipatory bail in the FIR No. RC0032022A0059/2022 registered under Section 120B/170/384/419/420 IPC and Section 66C/66D of the IT Act, 2008 at PS CBI, ACB, New Delhi.

2. As per the FIR, it is stated that information was received from source with regard to running of an illegal call centre where there was a largescale cyber cheating and extortion from foreign nationals by impersonating themselves as Police Officers and thereby causing wrongful loss to foreign nationals and wrongful gain to themselves.

3. The source also informed that most of the amounts collected from the victims were transferred in the form of bitcoin in the account of accused, Mr. Vijay who maintained an e-wallet of “WazirX”. The applicant is one of the accused running and operating the call centre. Hence, the FIR.

4. In the reply filed before the learned Sessions Court, the respondent has stated that during interrogation, it transpired that it was in fact the applicant along with his brother, Mr. Vaibhav Arora who were running the call centre at Shadi Khampur Village, New Delhi-110008 and had employees who were working as Telecallers. The Telecallers have identified the applicant and his brother as the kingpin of the call centre. The statement of Mr. Jaiveer Sharma has also been taken which states that it is the applicant who had rented 3 cabins in M/s Ojas International at H.No. 2161/T-6, 4th Floor, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 231, Guru Arjun Nagar, Shadi Khampur Village, New Delhi-110008. These cabins were searched and total 33 hard disks having incriminating data were seized.

5. In the present case, warrants have been issued against the applicant and he is „absconding‟. Even his brother, Mr. Vaibhav Arora, who had earlier filed a BAIL APPLN. 3292/2022 is „absconding‟.

6. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to find the financial trails having crypto currencies which are yet to be unearthed. The offences are of serious nature and has international ramifications.

7. It is also stated by Mr. Nigam, learned counsel for the applicant that in the present FIR, all the offences have maximum imprisonment of less or upto 7 years with or without fine and hence, notice under Section 41A Cr.PC is mandatorily required to be given as per the dicta of the judgment titled “Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr.” [(2014) 8 SCC 273].

8. This Court in a judgement titled as “Bhanu Prakash Singh vs. State ARORA (GNCT of Delhi)” [(2021) SCC OnLine Del 3018] has opined that:- “8.Undoubtedly, the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable upto 7 years imprisonment, however the magnitude of offence is enormous. In Arnesh Kumar (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, Supreme Court dealt with Section 41 Cr.P.C. and emphasising on Section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C. it was observed that when a person is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for less than 7 years or which may extend to 7 years with or without fine, not only has the Police officer to be satisfied that the accused has committed the said offence, but he is also required to be satisfied that the arrest of the accused is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence, or for proper investigation of the offence or to prevent such person from exploiting the evidence of the offence to disappear or tamper such evidence in any manner or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, or unless such person is arrested his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the Police Officer shall record his reasons in writing while making such arrest. Thus, the law does not mandate a blanket ban on arrest of accused against whom there is a reasonable suspicion of commission of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than 7 years or which may extend to 7 years but requires that the Police officer ARORA should be satisfied about the necessity of arrest on the conditions as noted in the sub-clauses (a) to (e) and should record reasons for the same. Even the High Powered Committee of this Court constituted under the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued direction to scrupulously follow the directions in the decision in Arnesh Kumar.”

9. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the application as of today. Hence, the application is dismissed.