Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court granted bail to an undertrial accused charged in a ₹3.5 crore fraud involving impersonation of government officials, creation of fake departments, and manipulation of emails to extract payments from victims. Justice Vikas Mahajan observed:
“No recovery has been effected from the petitioner and there is no allegation of his active participation in the commission of the offence. Co-accused have already been admitted to bail. On the ground of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to bail.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Facts
The prosecution case arose from an FIR registered on 9 October 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
It was alleged that the petitioner and his associates impersonated officials of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and created a fictitious department named “National E-Governance Services Delivery Gateway (NESDG).” The accused allegedly used forged email IDs and fake documents to contact vendors, placing fraudulent orders and duping them to the tune of ₹3.5 crore.
During investigation, it was found that a bank account in the name of “NESDG” was opened using forged documents, including a fake Department of Expenditure letter. Multiple transactions involving fraudulent proceeds were traced.
The petitioner was arrested on 18 October 2023 and had been in custody since then. The bail application was filed citing parity with co-accused who were already granted bail and the absence of any specific recovery or incriminating material directly linking the petitioner.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when co-accused have already been granted bail in the same case?
- Whether continued incarceration is warranted in the absence of any recovery or specific allegation of active participation?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner submitted that he had been falsely implicated and was not the beneficiary of any of the forged transactions. He emphasized that:
- No recovery had been made from him.
- He was not named in the FIR.
- There was no direct evidence of his involvement.
- Co-accused had already been released on bail.
He further submitted that the investigation was complete, and the chargesheet had already been filed. Thus, his continued incarceration served no purpose. He assured the Court of full cooperation during trial and offered to abide by any conditions imposed.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner played a role in executing a sophisticated financial fraud by impersonating government officials, creating a fake department, and defrauding public vendors. It was contended that the case involved serious economic offences affecting public faith in government systems.
The prosecution, however, conceded that no recovery was made from the petitioner and the evidence of his role was largely circumstantial. Despite this, the State insisted that granting bail may hamper further investigation or lead to tampering with evidence.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially in cases where:
- The accused is not a flight risk.
- No recovery is made from the accused.
- The investigation is complete and the chargesheet has been filed.
The Court considered the principle of parity, which mandates that similarly placed co-accused should not be treated differently without compelling reasons. This principle is firmly established under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Precedent Analysis
Though no specific precedents were cited by the Court in this case, the following legal principles were impliedly followed:
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308
- “Bail is the rule, jail is the exception.”
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528
- Parity among co-accused is a relevant factor unless the case of the petitioner is distinguishable.
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1
- Bail jurisprudence in financial fraud cases must balance individual liberty with the seriousness of the offence, without presuming guilt.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Vikas Mahajan noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 18 October 2023 and that:
- No recovery had been made from him.
- There was no allegation of active involvement.
- Co-accused had already been granted bail.
- Chargesheet had been filed, indicating that investigation was over.
The Court held that the petitioner stood on equal footing with other co-accused who were granted bail. It found no compelling reason to deny bail solely based on the seriousness of the offence, especially when evidence against the petitioner was not concrete.
Conclusion
The Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:
- He shall furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of like amount.
- He shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
- He shall cooperate in the trial and shall not leave Delhi without prior permission of the Court.
The bail application was allowed.
Implications
- Parity Principle Strengthened: Reinforces that bail should not be denied if co-accused with similar roles have been granted relief.
- Important Precedent in Cyber Frauds: Even in high-value economic offences, bail can be granted where direct evidence is lacking and trial is pending.
- Bail Despite Gravity: Emphasizes that seriousness of the offence alone is not a ground to deny bail in absence of specific culpability.
Summary of Case Referred
Although no specific precedents were cited in the text, the principle of parity applied is consistent with:
- Balchand’s Case on liberty,
- Kalyan Chandra Sarkar on parity among co-accused,
- and Nikesh Tarachand Shah on economic offences and bail rights.
FAQs
Q1. Can an accused in a cyber fraud case involving impersonation and government forgery be granted bail?
Yes, if there is no direct evidence or recovery from the accused, and if similarly placed co-accused have been granted bail, the High Court may grant bail.
Q2. Does parity with co-accused play a role in bail decisions?
Absolutely. Parity is a well-recognized principle, and bail cannot be denied arbitrarily if similarly situated co-accused are already out on bail.
Q3. Is economic offence alone sufficient to deny bail?
No. While seriousness is relevant, bail depends on role, evidence, recovery, and risk of tampering. Liberty cannot be denied mechanically for economic offences.
