Delhi High Court: An application was filed by the accused/applicant seeking anticipatory bail, who faces serious allegations of cheating and fraud under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Girish Kathpalia, J., held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the accused/applicant as the accused/applicant has stopped joining investigation and rather has fled to some undisclosed destination, thus, custodial investigation is necessary in this case in order to track down the trail of cheated money.
The factual background of the case dates to 2017 when the complainant and her children were allegedly deceived of a sum totaling Rs. 5,63,37,090 by the accused/applicant and his associates. According to the complainant, she and her family became involved with the accused/applicant and his associates after attending religious congregations at a temple in Chhatarpur, Delhi. The accused/applicant, along with his associates, reportedly assured the complainant that they had been sent by a religious preacher to solve her family’s problems.
In August 2017, during one such congregation, the accused/applicant allegedly assured the complainant that her son would secure a job in Dubai, using the blessings of the preacher. Over time, the complainant’s trust in the accused/applicant grew, and they were encouraged to invest substantial amounts of money in various schemes that were purportedly associated with the preacher. The accused/applicant promised the complainant that the investments would yield significant profits. Trusting the assurances, the complainant began investing large sums, which included money for her son’s job prospects, as well as funds for a supposed business venture in Dubai.
The complainant and her children continued to invest in the schemes, parting with substantial sums. In 2017, they initially invested Rs. 24,00,000, followed by further investments in 2018, totaling over Rs. 56,00,000, believing that their investments would yield returns as promised by the accused. However, by October 2020, the complainant sought the return of Rs. 2,00,00,000 from the accused, but was told that the money had been invested in Dubai and would take time to be liquidated. Despite repeated assurances from the accused/applicant, no payments were made, and the complainant soon realized that she had been cheated.
The matter escalated when the complainant, along with her children, lodged a complaint, which led to the registration of an FIR. During the investigation, it was revealed that the accused/applicant had not only failed to repay the money but had also fled to an undisclosed location, making it difficult for the authorities to trace him. Despite earlier mediation attempts, which resulted in a partial refund of Rs. 96,00,000, the accused/applicant did not fulfill his obligations after December 2024.
Counsel for the accused/applicant’s argued that the case was essentially a civil dispute with a criminal tinge, and that the accused had been cooperating with the investigation. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) strongly opposed the bail application, highlighting the fact that the accused had stopped cooperating with the investigation and had absconded. The prosecutor also referred to other complaints made by similar victims who had been cheated in a similar manner, amounting to over Rs. 8,00,00,000.
The Court observed that the accused/applicant’s actions amounted to a clear case of cheating, particularly given the significant amounts of money involved, the repeated assurances in the name of a religious preacher, and the emotional manipulation of the complainant. The Court further noted that the accused had failed to disclose where the money had been invested and had provided vague answers when questioned, including an unsubstantiated claim that the funds had been invested in cryptocurrency. The Court also remarked on the unfortunate reality that individuals, particularly those in vulnerable situations, were often preyed upon by such fraudulent schemes disguised as religious or philanthropic endeavors.
The Court concluded that despite earlier indulgence granted to the accused/applicant in terms of interim protection from arrest, the accused had failed to take advantage of this leniency and had not returned the cheated amounts to the victims. Furthermore, the accused’s evasion of the investigation and his subsequent absconding were factors that weighed against granting anticipatory bail. The Court noted that custodial investigation was necessary to track the trail of the money and to determine where the funds had been invested.
Considering the serious nature of the allegations, the repeated failure of the accused/applicant to comply with the terms of the settlement, and his avoidance of the investigation, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
[Manu Wadhwa v. State, Bail Appln. 1406/2024, decided on 22-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Hirein Sharma, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for the State with IO/Inspr. Vijay Pal, PS EOW Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate for complainant de facto (through videoconferencing)
