Shri.Dharmendra Saxena v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM (A)/7/2025 In Re: An application for bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with GR Case No. 163 of 2025, FIR No. 0009 of 2025 dated 10.03.2025 registered at P.S. Rangat under Sections 316, 318, 335, 336, 340 and 61 of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023.

And In the matter of : Shri Dharmendra Saxena Mr. Sumit Kumar Sakthi ... for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar Mr. S.C. Mishra ... for the State September 03, 2025 [AKB] Item No.1 The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 0009 dated 10.03.2025 registered at PS Cyber Crime, South Andaman, for offences punishable under Sections 316/318/335/336/340 and 61 of the BNS, 2023.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.02.2025, a written complaint was lodged by the Assistant General Manager, BSNL, Andaman and Nicobar Telecom Circle, alleging that M/s Dharmendra Communication, Orai, Uttar Pradesh, an authorized Customer Service Centre and Aadhaar Enrollment Agency, was indulging in irregularities resulting in the issuance of illegal Aadhaar cards. It is alleged that the Supervisor and Operators of the said agency misused login credentials, carried out enrollments from unauthorized locations, and tampered

with the UIDAI software to facilitate issuance of unauthorized Aadhaar cards.

It is further alleged that although the petitioner had intimated BSNL on 09.12.2024 regarding the removal of Mohammed Sahil (accused No. 2) from his firm, the said individual continued to act as administrator of the firm's WhatsApp group, which was being used for Aadhaar enrollment-related communications.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against him are false, frivolous, and motivated by ulterior considerations. It is contended that the power of attorney granted to accused No. 2 was revoked immediately upon the petitioner coming to know of the alleged misuse. Despite such revocation, accused No. 2, on his own, indulged in unauthorized and fraudulent activities without the knowledge, consent, or approval of the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that although accused No. 3 has also been charged with similar irregularities, he has not revoked his power of attorney. The petitioner asserts that he himself had lodged a cyber crime complaint on 28.01.2025 through the Cyber Crime Portal of the Government of India.

It is the petitioner's case that the alleged offences have been committed independently by accused Nos. 2 and 3, and that he has been wrongly saddled with vicarious liability for their criminal acts, despite having already taken corrective measures. The petitioner further states that he is a permanent resident with deep roots in society, is not a flight risk, and

undertakes to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation. He also submits that he is suffering from certain physical disabilities, which further entitle him to the protection of anticipatory bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application, contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to unearth the full extent of the fraudulent activities. It is submitted that the petitioner is the mastermind behind the criminal conspiracy, inasmuch as approximately 38,000 false Aadhaar cards have allegedly been issued at his instance, and that he has been involved in such activities at multiple locations.

It is further contended that the petitioner initially gave the impression that all Aadhaar-related activities would be conducted within the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and on that premise alone was awarded the tender by BSNL. However, subsequently, he shifted operations outside the said jurisdiction and facilitated the illegal issuance of Aadhaar cards to individuals in other States.

Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that although the petitioner was aware of the involvement of accused No. 2 in the issuance of illegal Aadhaar cards, he merely revoked the power of attorney and refrained from lodging any police complaint against him. Instead, in a bid to shield himself, the petitioner chose only to register a complaint on the Cyber Crime Portal of the Government of India, while deliberately avoiding

the filing of a formal criminal complaint before the police authorities.

It is also pointed out that the petitioner has not revoked the power of attorney of accused No. 3, despite the latter having also been implicated in the same fraudulent activities. Being the proprietor of M/s Dharmendra Communication, which had been awarded the BSNL contract, the petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the illegal acts committed by his staff and associates. It is submitted that the entire illegality was orchestrated under his direction and supervision. Learned Public Prosecutor further states that despite issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation.

In such circumstances, where the petitioner has evaded the due process of law and has not extended bona fide cooperation to the investigating agency, it is submitted that the relief of anticipatory bail ought not to be granted. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and has perused the materials on record. It is apparent that the petitioner, though has cancelled the power of attorney issued in favour of accused No. 2 and lodged a cyber crime incident on the Government of India portal only against accused No. 2, has deliberately refrained from taking any action against accused No. 3 despite being aware that accused No. 3 is also saddled with similar charges of indulging in irregularities and illegalities in the issuance of Aadhaar cards.

omission on the part of the petitioner prima facie demonstrates his connivance with the accused persons.

It is further evident that the petitioner has not taken any steps either to lodge an FIR or to cancel the power of attorney executed in favour of accused No. 3, which prima facie reflects his lack of bona fides.

Additionally, the petitioner has failed to cooperate with the investigating agency and has continuously evaded the notice issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. The conduct of the petitioner in avoiding investigation indicates the necessity of custodial interrogation.

The allegations pertain to offences affecting the integrity of statutory identification documents, which is a matter of serious public concern. Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may result in tampering with evidence and influencing material witnesses. The gravity of the offence, involving misuse of public documents, weighs against the grant of pre-arrest protection. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(Gaurang Kanth, J.)