Sarfaraz Alam And Anr vs. State Of West Bengal

Facts

The petitioners, Sarfaraz Alam and Mrs. Shreya De, are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Calcutta Cyber P.S. Case No. 62 of 2022. Sarfaraz Alam is the owner of a call center, and Mrs. Shreya De is its HR Manager. The call center is alleged to have defrauded approximately 57 individuals by promising the installation of 4G and 5G mobile towers of Bharti Airtel in exchange for substantial deposits. The petitioners are accused of involvement in cyber fraud related to these transactions. A charge-sheet has been filed in the case. The petitioners have a GST TIN number and have filed income tax returns.

Held

The Court decided to partly allow the application for anticipatory bail. Regarding petitioner no.1, Sarfaraz Alam, the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected. The Court reasoned that the nature of the allegations, involving cyber fraud and duping numerous individuals, was serious. Granting anticipatory bail to the owner of the call center was deemed likely to embolden him to misuse his liberty again. The Court noted that despite having a GST TIN and filing income tax returns, the gravity of the alleged offense outweighed these factors for anticipatory bail. For petitioner no.2, Mrs. Shreya De, who is a lady, the Court allowed the prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court expressed a desire to avoid taking her into custody for interrogation. She was directed to appear before the City Sessions Court cum Special Court within 15 days and be released on bail on terms and conditions deemed proper by the court, including appearing on dates of hearing and not leaving the trial court's jurisdiction for 15 days without prior permission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the nature of the allegations of cyber fraud and the filing of a charge-sheet. Arguments for the Petitioners: The petitioners argued that a charge-sheet has been filed, and petitioner no.1 possesses a GST TIN number and has filed income tax returns, suggesting some level of compliance. They sought anticipatory bail to avoid custody. Arguments for the State: The State, through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, did not present specific arguments regarding the entitlement to anticipatory bail beyond what is implied by the nature of the allegations. The Court's decision reflects a consideration of the gravity of the alleged offenses.