While considering the applications 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, the Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to accused individuals, in a case involving an online scam.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that “A perusal of material on record reveals that the accused persons are allegedly running a fake parcel delivery scam on a large scale by the means of online portals. This Court observes that the perpetration of scams like the one under consideration impacts the society on a much broader scale. It not only effects the trust and confidence of individuals, but also undermines the integrity of online payment systems and digital transactions as a whole. Such scams, therefore, should be deemed as grave offenses, given their potential to serve as a significant deterrent to public trust in the sphere of online financial transactions—an indispensable pillar of our modern economy”.

Advocate Anish Shrestha appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Naresh Kumar Chahar appeared for the Respondent.

As per the brief facts, 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. 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 counsel for 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.

After considering the submission, the Bench highlighted that 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.

“A perusal of records reveals that the employees of applicants/accused persons herein, in their statements, had stated that they have been working on the directions of applicants/accused persons, Suson Adhikari, and Aditya Raj Verma. This Court notices that 2 shipments were seized which had although contained only nail polishes but the shipments were labeled with the banned product in question”, added the Bench.

The Bench further found that courier company was asked to provide the details of the shipment which were booked by the alleged persons for delivery but the complete data was never received.

The Bench observed that such data is essential in order to trace such scams as the present complaint is not just a representation of an individual interest, but in the larger interest of the society, and the conspiracy needs to be unearthed.

Therefore, considering the gravity of the allegations against the accused individuals and the nature of their alleged involvement in a financial scam, the High Court decided not to grant anticipatory bail to them.

Cause Title: Sulav Adhikari and Anr.v. State of Govt of NCT Delhi and Anr. [Neutral Citations: 2023: DHC: 7036]

Click here to read/ download the Judgment


Delhi High CourtJustice Swarna Kanta Sharma

Pankaj Bajpai