Online Part-Time Job Scam: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused, Says Custodial Interrogation Needed To Uncover Conspiracy

The Delhi High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to an agent of fintech Rapipay, allegedly involved in duping a man of ₹17,95,000/- in an online part-time job scam.Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that in cases involving financial transactions, sustained and custodial interrogation is the most vital course of action. The bench said,“The presence of a prima facie case, the applicant's role in enabling the laundering of proceeds of crime, and the need to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy collectively weigh against the grant of anticipatory bail…In SFIO v. Aditya Sarda, the Supreme Court reiterated that economic offences form a distinct category and must be treated with seriousness. The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly in such cases, especially where the accused are evading law or obstructing legal processes.”The complainant alleged that he was induced via WhatsApp and Telegram to perform investment-based tasks and to transfer money from his bank accounts. A part of the funds were subsequently traced to the applicant, a Rapipay agent.Applicant claimed that although the IO's status report linked him to the case, it failed to establish his role in the fraud, or any financial benefit derived therefrom.Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicant is directly linked to the fraudulent transaction as an agent of the Rapipay account used to route the proceeds of crime.At the outset, the High Court noted that allegations against the Applicant pertain to a serious and organized cyber fraud.“The investigation reveals that the applicant was operating as a Rapipay agent and that his virtual account is the subject of 29 separate complaints. Furthermore, connections have been established through IP logs, WhatsApp chats, and fund flows between the applicant and co-accused, who acted as the collector of the defrauded amounts,” Court said.It relied on Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., (2022) where the Supreme Court clarified that the absence of a need for custodial interrogation alone is not a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail. The Top Court had emphasized that while custodial interrogation is a relevant factor, the primary consideration should be the existence of a prima facie case against the accused, along with the nature of the offence and severity of the punishment. Therefore, even if custodial interrogation is not warranted, anticipatory bail may still be rightly denied based on the overall merits of the case. In the case at hand, the Court noted that while the Applicant did join the investigation pursuant to summons, the IO had stated that he did not cooperate meaningfully. “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 Court thus said and dismissed the plea.Appearance: Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, Mr. Sougat Mishra, Mr. Rohit Shukla and Ms. Nitika Duhan, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Aman Usman, APP for the State. Case title: Shamikh Shahbaz Shaikh v. State Govt. Of NCT Of DelhiCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 555Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 731/2025 Click here to read order

Online Part-Time Job Scam: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused, Says Custodial Interrogation Needed To Uncover Conspiracy

Kapil Dhyani

Tags