Aslam Sayyed vs. State (Nct Of Delhi)

Facts

The petitioner, Aslam Sayyed, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0379/2022 registered under Sections 419, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. The FIR was based on a complaint alleging that S.M. Global, through its MLM projects and cryptocurrency MetaPex, lured investors with promises of high returns, but subsequently failed to credit returns or principal amounts. Investors lost approximately Rs. 1.47 crores between September 2021 and January 2022. The petitioner, a Director of M/s. GAK Exchange Pvt. Ltd., argued he was falsely implicated, had cooperated with the investigation, and his company merely exchanged currency for S.M. Global as part of its legitimate business, with proper documentation. The State contended that Rs. 98 lakhs were transferred to M/s. GAK Exchange Pvt. Ltd. from S.M. Global, and the petitioner, holding 90% shares, could not satisfactorily explain huge cash withdrawals of Rs. 63 crores from his company's account. Discrepancies were also noted between the company's sales revenue of Rs. 3300 crores and a profit of Rs. 4 lakhs, with GST returns not correlating with sales.

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application. The Court noted that the investigation was in its initial stages. The material collected indicated financial irregularities in the business transactions of M/s. GAK Exchange Services Pvt. Ltd. The Court found that the custodial interrogation of the applicant might be required to ascertain the details of the transactions, as the applicant was suspected of engaging in illegal transactions under the guise of foreign exchange business. The Court also took into account that approximately 43 victims had come forward to lodge complaints. Given these facts and circumstances, the Court found no reason to grant anticipatory bail. The Court clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 0379/2022, considering the allegations of cheating and financial irregularities? The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and had cooperated with the investigation. He claimed his company, M/s. GAK Exchange Pvt. Ltd., acted solely as a currency exchanger for S.M. Global, conducting business with valid licenses and maintaining proper documentation like invoices, sales registers, and statements of accounts, without knowledge of the alleged fraudulent source of funds. He relied on his interim protection granted by the ASJ and his cooperation. The State argued that the petitioner's role emerged during the investigation, highlighting the transfer of Rs. 98 lakhs to his company and his significant shareholding. The State emphasized the inability of the petitioner to provide satisfactory explanations for cash withdrawals of Rs. 63 crores and significant discrepancies between sales revenue and reported profit, as reflected in GST returns. The State asserted the need for custodial interrogation to ascertain facts and the conduct of business, citing the involvement of 43 victims.