NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has denied bail to a man accused of allegedly impersonating a Supreme Court lawyer in a bid to encash a large amount of money from his bank account.

Metropolitan Magistrate Jitendra Pratap Singh denied relief to accused Sunil Kumar Rathi saying that the extent to which the perpetrators have gone to commit the theft after impersonating a lawyer, there is no doubt that there is a widespread network that has sufficient technological proficiency and know-how.

According to the police, advocate Yashraj Singh Deora’s SIM card was duplicated using Aadhaar card details, following which his cheques and signatures were forged and presented in the bank to get the money.

Two cheques were allegedly drawn for sums of Rs 96.5 lakh and Rs 14.5 lakh.

On complaint, the bank officials stopped the payment of the cheques and re-credited the amount to the lawyer’s bank account.

The court noted that one of the forged cheques has been recovered from his possession, to which the accused has no excuse.

It said that the role of the officials of the telecommunications services company in the entire scheme of issuance of duplicate SIM cards without consent is also required to be examined.

“The whole conspiracy is yet to be unearthed.

If released on bail, there is a likelihood of the accused shielding the other persons involved in the crime and of destroying evidence,” the court noted in an order dated August 7.

During the hearing, the public prosecutor opposed Rathi’s bail application on the ground that the case discloses a well-planned and deep-rooted conspiracy apparently involving several persons.

“Firstly the attempts were made, some of which succeeded, for getting issued duplicate SIMs of the registered mobile number of the complainant by impersonating the complainant from several places in India,” the prosecutor told the court.

He further explained, “Thereafter the cheques of the complainant were forged on which his signatures were also subsequently forged.

The cheques were then presented for encashment at various places for significantly large sums of money.

” Meanwhile, counsel appearing for Rathi told the court the cheque was never recovered from his custody and that he has been falsely implicated in the case.

A case was registered by the police under sections 379 (punishment for theft), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security, Will etc), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.