Bhanu Prakash Singh vs State (G.N.C.T Of Delhi) on 4 June, 2021

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. By this petition the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.
96/2021 under Sections 419/420/120-B/34 IPC and Section 66-C/66-D of
the Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at PS Kirti Nagar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a
young boy aged 32 years and is not concerned with the so-called fake call
centre being run. Petitioner has clarified that he is working with M/s. Deans
Infratech Pvt. Ltd. which has its offices in Delhi, Mumbai and are engaged
in the road construction business, which fact has been verified by the
investigating officer. Hence the petitioner is sought to be falsely implicated
in this case. The so-called employees of the call centre were all granted
regular bail without any Police custody remand. All the computers, datas,
phones which are required for investigation have already been recovered and

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
BAIL APPLN. 1644/2021 Page 1 of GUPTA
MUKTA 8
Signing Date:04.06.2021
15:43:51
no recovery is required to be made from the petitioner. Since the offences
alleged against the petitioner are punishable with sentence upto seven years
imprisonment, the petitioner was required to be given a notice under Section
41-A of the Cr.P.C. in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported
as (2014) 8 SCC 273 Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. Further while
issuing the guidelines for arrest the High Powered Committee of this Court
directed that in view of the COVID-19 situation the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) should be followed and accused
who are not required for interrogation be not arrested and in this regard the
High Powered Committee issued directions to the Commissioner of Police
to issue guidelines to all DCPs to ensure compliance of the decision of the
Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar, (supra), DLSA to conduct sensitization
programme and directions on administrative side to the concerned District
and Sessions Judges to ensure compliance of the directions passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. All accused have been released on bail including
the accused in whose name the property was leased where the said alleged
fake call centre was being run. Petitioner is suffering from serious ailments
which medical documents have been duly verified and in view of the
COVID-19 situation, the petitioner be not subjected to Police or Judicial
custody. The only evidence against the petitioner is the disclosure
statements of the co-accused persons which are not admissible in evidence
and cannot be relied upon to deny anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*