InBail Appln. 1484/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail to accused in fake parcel delivery scam; says online scams undermine public trust in digital transactions
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [26-09-2023]

Read Order:Sulav Adhikari &Anr V. State of Govt of NCT Delhi &Anr

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 27, 2023: In a recent development, the Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to accused individuals, in a case involving an online scam.

The present applications were filed on behalf of the accused/applicants seeking anticipatory bail in a case arising out of an FIR registered for an offense punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Briefly stated, in the present case, an FIR was registered based on a complaint, alleging that the accused/applicants had engaged in cheating by advertising and selling a banned product called Pink Flamingo Neimo 2.0 through Facebook. On 03.03.2023, while the complainant was not in Delhi, a courier was received in his name, even though he had not placed any such order. One of his office staff members accepted the courier and paid Rs. 4,000 for it. The complainant reported this incident to the Blue Dart office, where he was informed that the order had been delivered by Nimbus India and the refund for the delivery had been made to the complainant through a Paytm mobile number registered in the name of one of the accused, Sulav Adhikari. The following day, the complainant's office staff received another call asking for an OTP, and they were told that the complainant would receive his money back within 24 hours. Subsequently, the complainant did receive his money, but a few hours later, Rs. 4,100 was deducted from his account.

The Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State argued that this was a cybercrime case involving multiple victims who were cheated by the applicants. It was further stated that the employees of the applicants, in their statements, claimed that the company was not selling any product named Pink Flamingo Wireless. However, upon conducting a more extensive investigation, it was revealed that a total of 6,267 orders had been placed for the Pink Flamingo out of 20,590 orders. The APP argued that since the investigation was still in its initial stages and custodial interrogation of the applicants was deemed necessary to uncover the larger conspiracy, bail should be denied.

The single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the accused individuals were allegedly operating a large-scale fake parcel delivery scam through online portals. The bench observed that scams like the one in question have a widespread impact on society. Such scams should therefore be considered serious offenses, as they have the potential to significantly deter public trust in online financial transactions, which are a crucial part of the modern economy.

The bench said, “In an era where digital transactions have evolved to become fundamental component of our economic infrastructure, any threat to the security and trustworthiness of online financial interactions poses a direct challenge to the economic stability and progress of our society.”

Therefore, taking into account the gravity of the allegations against the accused individuals and the nature of their alleged involvement in a financial scam, the court decided not to grant anticipatory bail to them.

Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail applications were dismissed.