Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court noted that the applicant was working at Justdial in December 2016 as a Relationship Manager and was actively involved in supplying data to his co-accused persons and his link with the said co-accused persons.
It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant helped other Chinese nationals who were responsible for building the loan app and facilitating the opening of bank accounts of non-existent companies for the transfer of duped money.
Merely by mentioning in the arrest memo that the petitioner has been inconsistent in his statements before the Investigating Officer and has kept on changing his versions and as such, has not co-operated with the investigation in disclosing full and true facts, is not sufficient and the same cannot be a ground of arrest as it is unacceptable and contrary to the mandate of Section 41(1)(b)(i)&(ii) from (a) to (e) of the CrPC.
The reason given in the arrest memos to arrest the petitioners, having regard to the facts, appears to be casual, mechanical and perfunctory, clearly without application of mind. The grounds for arrest of the petitioners mentioned in the arrest memos clearly breach the mandatory provisions of Sections 41 and 41-A and 60-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Delhi High Court: In a case filed seeking bail for an accused being involved in an alleged bank loan scam
Sessions Court, Greater Bombay: Abhijeet A. Nandgaonkar, Additional Sessions Judge, issued summons, being of the prima facie opinion that Chanda Kochhar, Former