Facts of the Case

This is a cyber-fraud case under the Information Technology Act and IPC, not a GST matter — the petitioner's possession of a GST TIN number is mentioned only as part of his defence that his call-centre business was legitimate. Sarfaraz Alam, owner of a call centre, and his wife Shreya De @ Shirin, its HR Manager, sought anticipatory bail before the Calcutta High Court in Calcutta Cyber P.S. Case No. 62 of 2022, registered under Sections 66/66C/66D/84B read with Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 120B/419/420/465/467/468/471 IPC.

The call centre was alleged to have duped about 57 persons by falsely promising installation of 4G and 5G mobile towers for Bharti Airtel in exchange for deposits of substantial sums of money. A charge-sheet had already been filed by the time of the hearing.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioners, alleged to be the owner and HR manager of a call centre running a mobile-tower-installation cyber fraud, were entitled to anticipatory bail.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 held a GST TIN number and filed income-tax returns, pointing to this as evidence that his business was a legitimate, registered enterprise rather than a fraud front.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State opposed anticipatory bail for the call-centre owner, given the scale of the alleged fraud (around 57 victims) and the risk that releasing him on anticipatory bail would embolden him to repeat the conduct as the person controlling the call centre.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court declined anticipatory bail to petitioner No. 1, Sarfaraz Alam, as the owner of the call centre, holding that the nature of the allegations meant that granting him anticipatory bail could embolden further misuse of his position, despite his having a GST TIN and filing income-tax returns.
  • It granted anticipatory bail to petitioner No. 2, Shreya De, as a woman the Court did not wish to see taken into custody for interrogation, directing her to appear before the trial court within 15 days and be released on bail with standard conditions.
  • The application was thus allowed in part.

Important Clarification

The petitioner's GST registration and income-tax compliance were cited only to argue his business was above-board — the Court did not find this persuasive enough to override the seriousness of the cyber-fraud allegations against him specifically. This order has no bearing on any GST law question.

Sections Involved

  • Information Technology Act, 2000 – Sections 66, 66C, 66D, 84B, 43
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 (anticipatory bail)

Decision – In Favour of

Decided partly in favour of each party: anticipatory bail was refused to petitioner No. 1 (Sarfaraz Alam) and granted to petitioner No. 2 (Shreya De); this is a bail-stage decision only, unrelated to GST law.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court at Calcutta
  • Case No.: CRM(A) 3412 of 2023
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chitta Ranjan Dash and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
  • Date of Order: 29.08.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.