Delhi HC Denies Anticipatory Bail to Man Accused in Online Job Scam Operated via WhatsApp and Telegram

The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code at Cyber Police Station, Rohini. The case arose from a complaint filed by Pradeep Kumar Behera, who alleged that he was defrauded of ₹17,95,000 in an online part-time job scam operated through WhatsApp and Telegram.

The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that the applicant’s Rapipay account was the subject of 29 separate complaints. The court also acknowledged digital evidence linking the applicant to co-accused individuals, including financial trails and WhatsApp communications.

Therefore, the bench held, “The applicant’s plea of innocence and allegations of misuse of his account are issues that will require deeper investigation and are not sufficient to merit anticipatory bail at this stage”.

The bench further emphasized that, "these offences involve deep-rooted conspiracies causing significant loss to public funds and pose serious threats to the country’s financial health”.

The case stemmed from an investigation that led to the discovery of a complex trail of funds initially transferred by the complainant from his Canara, SBI, and Federal Bank accounts. A sum of ₹9,00,000 was transferred to a Yes Bank account in the name of M/s Sanofi Enterprises. These funds were subsequently routed through ICICI Bank (M/s S.S. Fashion) and Axis Bank (Rapipay Fintech Pvt. Ltd.) before reaching Feroz Ibrahim Shaikh, an agent whose IP logs were linked to the applicant. The applicant was identified as a Rapipay agent against whose virtual account multiple complaints had been registered.

Further links were established between the applicant and co-accused Mohammed Fauzan Hajatay, his brother-in-law, who allegedly assisted in fund collection. IP addresses associated with Feroz’s Rapipay ID reportedly matched the travel itinerary of another brother-in-law, Rehan, indicating coordinated activity.

Advocate Aditya Wadhwa, representing the applicant, submitted that officers from Cyber Police Station, Rohini, visited the applicant’s residence in Pune and served a notice under Section 41A under CrPC to his father. The applicant subsequently joined the investigation on 10 February 2025 and submitted a written denial of involvement. He also filed a criminal complaint against Rapipay Fintech Pvt. Ltd., alleging misuse of his virtual account, and submitted a grievance to the Reserve Bank of India.

Advocate Aditya Wadhwa contended that the prosecution’s case suffered from inconsistencies and lacked direct evidence connecting the applicant to the offence. It was argued that the presumption of innocence must prevail, and arrest must be based on a clear understanding of the accused’s role. It was further argued that the applicant satisfied the "triple test" for bail, as he was not a flight risk, posed no threat to witnesses, and was unlikely to tamper with evidence.

However, the prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman, opposed the application, arguing that the applicant played an active role in the offence. A sum of ₹4,00,000 had been credited to his account, suggesting direct participation in the fraudulent scheme. The prosecution relied on the statement of co-accused Feroz Ibrahim Shaikh and other digital evidence to support its claim. It also emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the broader conspiracy underlying the organized cyber fraud.

The court, referring to the principles established by the Supreme Court, reiterated that economic offences required a distinct and serious approach. It held that anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly, particularly where there existed a prima facie case and where the accused appeared to have facilitated the laundering of proceeds of crime.

The court outlined, “anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly in such cases, especially where the accused are evading law or obstructing legal processes". Accordingly, the court dismissed the application.

For Applicant: Advocates Aditya Wadhwa, Sougat Mishra, Rohit Shukla and Nitika Duhan

For Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman

Case Title: Shamikh Shahbaz Shaikh v State (2025:DHC:3698)