‘Possibility of a wider network’: Delhi HC refuses to grant bail to accused involved in BlueDart scam after considering monetary loss suffered by complainant
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [02-05-2024]

Read Order: KUNDAN KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [DEL HC- BAIL APPLN. 1496/2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, June 14, 2024: In a case where the impersonators posing as Blue Dart representatives carried out unauthorized transactions from the complainant’s bank account, the Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to one of the accused persons.

It was the case of the prosecution that a written complaint was received from one Kuldeep Kumar Hemrom, working in CBI, Head Office, New Delhi as constable alleging that on 03.02.2023 he had booked a courier from DSK Xpress Services (authorised associates of Blue Dart and DHL), New Delhi for Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and he had been further handed over a receipt of the alleged courier.

 

When the complainant got to know that his courier was showing as mislocated courier he called up a phone number assuming it to be the customer care number and he was aksed to pay Rs. 2 to locate the said courier by clicking on a linke. He had further filled out the form wherein had given his bank name, mobile number, an amount of Rs. 2, and a UPI PIN for his SBI account number.He was later  had assured the complainant that it would be delivered by evening itself. When the complainant had checked his SBI bank account statement using the YONO app, he had discovered that on 06.02.2023 an amount of Rs. 99,963/-, and on 07.02.2023, an amount of Rs. 98,965/- had been debited from his account. 

The said transactions were not authorized by him and it was alleged that the said individuals who pretended to be Blue Dart representatives and used the mobile numbers were responsible for these transactions. Thereafter, the present RC/FIR was registered by the CBI. Based on the information from a reliable source, the CBI team had arrived at the HDFC Bank ATM in Nawada, Bihar and apprehended co-accused Amit Kumar in the act of withdrawing money from an account that wasn't his own.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma opined that the prosecution’s case revolved around a series of fraudulent activities involving the booking of an alleged courier and unauthorized transactions from the complainant’s bank account. 

As far as the role of present applicant/accused was concerned it had been alleged that upon interrogating, the co-accused Amit Kumar had revealed that the present applicant/accused was his associate and that the present applicant/accused had provided him with various ATM cards and PINs to facilitate cash withdrawals from the said accounts including the one at HDFC Nawada Branch, Bihar. Further the said version corroborated the CDRs of the present applicant and co-accused Amit Kumar as the same indicated continued communications between the applicant and the co-accused during the relevant period of time.

“In this Court’s opinion granting bail to the present applicant/accused could jeopardize the ongoing investigation which is still in its nascent stage. If the present applicant is enlarged on pre-arrest bail there is a possibility that the same might hinder the investigation as crucial evidence is being collected and to uncover the entire scam”, the Bench said.

The Bench noted that the prosecution’s case entailed a chain of events starting from the booking of a courier, fraudulent communication with impersonators posing as Blue Dart representatives, unauthorized transactions from the complainant’s bank account which needs investigation including unearthing the involvement of organized cybercriminals in perpetrating these crimes. Custodial interrogation of accused will be required for abovementioned purposes.Custodial interrogation of accused was hence required for the above mentioned purposes.

‘Given the intricate nature of the fraudulent activities involved and the possibility of a wider network, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the present applicant/accused”, the Bench added while dismissing the bail application.