Use Of Forged Identity Documents & Prima Facie Involvement In Offence Leads To Apprehension Of Flight Risk: Delhi High Court
|While considering an application filed on behalf of the accused/appellant seeking regular bail, who was facing charges under Sections 406/409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, the Delhi High Court denied bail to an accused in a bitcoin investment scam, citing prima facie evidence of his involvement in the offence.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Sharma observed that “the present applicant used identity documents which have been found to be forged. As pointed hereinabove, one of the bank accounts opened at the instance of the present applicant had three documents having different dates of birth. It was also pointed out that out of those documents, two aadhar cards bearing the same number had different dates of birth. The aforesaid forged documents fortify the apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant is a flight risk and if the present applicant is released on bail, he will not be available for trial”.
Advocate Vinay Vats appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Aman Usman appeared for the Respondent.
The brief facts of the case were that, an FIR was initiated following a complaint made by Mr. Anil Kumar Sood (complainant) against four individuals namely, Haqmuddin, Islamuddin, Taiyyab Hussain, and Manoj Patel (present applicant). The complaint alleged that Haqmuddin, who represented himself as a member of a team associated with a company named 'BTC ADS PRO,' had lured the complainant. This company purportedly engaged in bitcoin trading and offered an enticing investment opportunity promising daily returns. According to the complainant, based on these enticing promises, the accused individuals had managed to extract a total sum of Rs. 60 lakhs from him within a month. However, later, the accused had abruptly stopped providing investment information on the website, closed the registered IDs, and completely shut down the company's website. Furthermore, it was alleged that Islamuddin and Tayyab Hussain, with the involvement of the applicant, had facilitated a meeting between the complainant and the applicant. During this meeting, all the accused, including the applicant, had reassured the complainant that they would return his entire investment. They had claimed that the repayment would comprise a combination of cash and investments in their new company named 'IMAX Capital.' The complainant had been provided with the WhatsApp number of this company by the applicant. However, at a later point, the applicant had blocked the complainant's messages.
The counsel representing the applicant argued that in the present case, the cheques obtained from the complainant had been deposited into the accounts of other co-accused individuals. It was contended that the amount, which is alleged to have been cheated according to the accusations in the present FIR, did not reach the present applicant.
After considering the submission, the Bench observed that, based on the complainant's case, there appeared to be a prima facie involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the alleged offense.
Likewise, the Bench refused to accept the argument put forth by the applicant's counsel, suggesting that the cheques received from the complainant were not deposited into the applicant's account and therefore absolving him from involvement in the case.
The Bench found that the prosecution's assertion was that a sum of Rs. 58,00,000 from the defrauded amount had been deposited into the bank accounts of the company, of which the present applicant was the proprietor.
The Bench also observed that there were nearly 34 cases registered against the present applicant in various locations throughout the country.
Pointing that the present applicant had used forged identity documents, which had further strengthened the prosecution's concern that the applicant may attempt to flee, and if released on bail, he might not be available for trial, the High Court decided not to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.
Cause Title: Manoj Patel Alias Manoj Kumawat v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7057]
Click here to read/ download the Judgment