Mohd. Irfan v. State (NCT of Delhi)
![Bail application in a case involving the set up of an illegal telephone exchange to route foreign calls](https://cyberblogindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Mohd.-Irfan-v.-State-NCT-of-Delhi-865x433.png)
Mohd. Irfan v. State (NCT of Delhi)
In the High Court of Delhi
B.A. 229/2023 and Crl. M.A. 17291/2023
Before Justice Amit Sharma
Decided on August 22, 2023
Relevancy of the Case: Bail application in a case involving the set up of an illegal telephone exchange to route foreign calls
Statutes and Provisions Involved
- The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Section 4, 20, 21, 25)
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120B, 406, 420)
- The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 65)
Relevant Facts of the Case
- The accused and the co-accused established an illegal telephone exchange. The accused used new technology to route foreign calls via an illegal route over the internet.
- The police arrested the accused on September 10, 2022. The accused filed for a bail application on September 15, 2022, which the court rejected because the applicant could tamper with the evidence and the charges had not been framed. The accused filed the present bail application in 2023.
Prominent Arguments by the Advocates
- The applicant’s counsel presented that the court had granted bail to the co-accused. Per the latest status report, the police have filed chargesheets and the FSL reports. The court has received the FSL reports.
- The respondent’s counsel submitted that the applicant had committed a grave offence involving large amounts of money. Further, the investigation with respect to the accounts was still underway.
Opinion of the Bench
- The applicant had not directly breached the trust or cheated the government of India. Thus, the applicant would not be punishable by the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. However, the court did not pass a judgement.
- The court cited multiple precedents reiterating that, even in cases of grave economic offences, it is the rule to grant bail and the exception to refuse it.
- The applicant had been in judicial custody for the past 1 year and 7 months, and he would serve no further purpose in custody.
Final Decision
- The court accepted the bail application.
Arnav Kaman, an undergraduate student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, prepared this case summary during his internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2024.