Wife of ‘fake DRDO scientist’ denied bail after man loses Rs 7.8 crore in ‘radioactive substance’ scam

“Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner from the material brought forth before this court. The allegations in the FIR ibid reflect that the complainant, a senior citizen, was allegedly made to part with his life savings and the proceeds of sale of his immovable property on the false promise of lucrative investments in purported DRDO-linked projects and rare radioactive substances,” the court said on August 25.

The order noted that the alleged amount involved is approximately Rs 7.8 crores, and the nature of the allegations reflects a serious economic offence which requires proper investigation into the entire financial chain, and the role of all persons connected with the transactions needs to be ascertained.

Man allegedly duped by fake Air Force personnel

The case arose from an alleged Rs 7.8-crore fraud involving a 71-year-old complainant. According to the FIR, the complainant was allegedly induced between 2022 and 2026 to invest his savings on the promise of highly lucrative investment opportunities.

Justice Sumeet Goel heard the matter on August 25.

The main accused, the petitioner’s husband, allegedly introduced himself as a former Air Force personnel and a scientist associated with DRDO, claiming to have high-level contacts and access to valuable investment opportunities. He allegedly persuaded the complainant to invest in purported antique binoculars and a rare radioactive substance allegedly used in advanced rocket technology.

The complainant was subsequently allegedly induced to sell his industrial plot in Panchkula for around Rs 7 crore and part with the sale proceeds. Overall, he allegedly transferred around Rs 7.8 crore through bank transfers and cash, but received no returns on the purported investments. He was also allegedly asked to keep the transactions secret from his family and friends. The alleged fraud came to light after his family examined his bank statements and questioned the transactions.

Following this, the FIR was registered on June 21. The present petition was filed by the wife of the main accused, seeking anticipatory bail. She argued that she had no role in the alleged cheating, had been living separately from her husband due to matrimonial differences, and had neither met nor communicated with the complainant.

The State, however, relied on monetary transactions between the main accused and the petitioner and argued that her custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the money and uncover the alleged conspiracy.

Wife’s role requires further investigation: Order

The court noted that the investigation had, at that stage, revealed a prima facie financial nexus between the petitioner and the alleged proceeds of crime. Although the petitioner was not named in the FIR, her involvement had subsequently surfaced during the investigation.

The court held that the petitioner’s explanation regarding the monetary transactions with the main accused was a matter for investigation. The fact that she was the wife of the main accused, and that the allegations of cheating were primarily against her husband, did not by itself rule out her possible involvement.

The court accepted the state’s contention that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the entire money trail, identify the beneficiaries and ascertain the precise role of each person involved in the alleged offence and conspiracy.

It emphasised that the investigation was at a crucial stage and that granting anticipatory bail could adversely affect the investigating agency’s efforts to unravel the alleged conspiracy. The Court also observed that the mere absence of the petitioner’s name in the FIR did not rule out her active involvement in facilitating the offence.

The court further observed that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief and that while considering such a plea, the Court must balance the protection of individual liberty with the societal interest and the need for a fair and effective investigation.

It found that the material collected during the preliminary investigation provided a reasonable basis for the accusations and that there was no exceptional or compelling circumstance warranting protection from arrest.