Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Sandipkumar Sunderbhai Thakur vs State Of Gujarat on 23 February, 2018

Author: J.B.Pardiwala

Bench: J.B.Pardiwala

          R/CR.MA/4624/2018                                                     ORDER




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4624 of 2018
==========================================================
              SANDIPKUMAR SUNDERBHAI THAKUR
                           Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR AFZAL KHAN for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR. BHARGAV K MEHTA for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MS MOXA THAKKAR, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================

    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
 
                                  Date : 23/02/2018 
                                    ORAL ORDER

1. By   this   application   under   Section­439   of   the   Code   of   Criminal  Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused no.2 prays for regular  bail in connection with an F.I.R. registered with the Bopal Police Station,  Ahmedabad Rural, vide I­C.R.No.92 of 2017 for the offence punishable  under   sections­420,   465,   467,   468,   471   and   120B   of   the   I.P.C.   and  Sections­66(a) (b), (c) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

2. The F.I.R. came to be lodged by one Brijesh Ashwinkumar Modi.  The F.I.R. is extracted hereunder:­ My   name   is   Brijesh   Ashwinkumar   Modi,   age   30   years,   occupation   -   service,   resident   of   Bopal,   E­101,   Silvar   Stroke   Apartment,   Behind   Government   Tube­well,   Ta.   Dashkroi,   Dist.   Ahmedabad, mobile no. 8200589613, 9998824191. 

Being asked personally, I dictate that I reside at the above mentioned   address since last about five years and I earn my livelihood by doing   private   service   as   an   accountant   in   Tripada   Health   Care   Pvt.   Ltd.,   Drive­in Road, Ahmedabad. 

A joint savings account of me and my wife Devaliben is maintained in   Drive­in Road Branch of SBI in Ahmedabad. The account number is   Page 1 of 6 R/CR.MA/4624/2018 ORDER 20114349840. I even hold ATM card of this account for transaction of   money. I withdraw money using this card. Though this ATM card was   with   me,   Rs.19,500/­   was   debited   from   my   account   early   in   the   morning on last 19/08/2017. Moreover, bank charges of Rs. 23.60/­   was   added   therein   and   thus   total   Rs.19523.60/­   was   withdrawn.   I   received total three messages for this on my mobile no.9998824191   between 6.30 to 7.30 hours in the morning. On seeing the messages, it   was found that total three withdrawal transactions of Rs. 10,000/­,   Rs.   9,000/­   and   Rs.   500/­   were   carried   out   between   4.00   to   6.30   hours. As I searched for my ATM at this time, it was found that the  ATM card was in my wallet. Therefore, I went to my Drive­in Road   Branch of SBI and the Manager over there informed me to get my ATM   blocked and lodge complaint in the police station. Therefore, I got my   ATM card blocked and thereafter, I went to Vastrapur Police Station   and submitted application in this regard. As I got entry made in my   passbook,  I found  that the  above  mentioned  money was withdrawn   from ATM of Ghatlodia Branch of ICICI Bank. Therefore, I submitted   application   in   the   said   branch   on   21/08/17.   Thereafter,   as   I   demanded CCTV footage from both the banks, I was told that I will not   get the footage; they will provide the same only if the police demands.   Thereafter, Drive­in Road Branch of SBI, Ahmedabad informed me in   writing that ICICI Bank is not ready to provide CCTV footage to them   and that they will give me the footage as and when they provide the   same. Thereafter, in order to get the CCTV footage, I submitted RTI   applications at various places. Thereafter, forms for ATM transaction   disputes   were   filled   in   my   branch   on   13/09/17   and   19/09/17.   Thereafter, phone call was received on mobile numbers of my wife and   that   of   mine   on   05/10/17   from   Cyber   Cell,   Dafnala,   Shahibag,   Ahmedabad and it was informed that 'as money has been withdrawn   from your account, come over here to meet'. Therefore, when I visited   the place, I was informed that fact regarding money withdrawn from   your account has been found from the persons of gang detained by us.   Therefore,   register   complaint   at   the   place   where   you   are   residing.  Therefore, as I read in Gujarat Samachar newspaper dated 04/10/17  that a gang has been captured comprising the persons named below   who were withdrawing money by forging duplicate ATM cards, I have   come   here   to   register   complaint   against   them.   Therefore,   as   Rs,   19,500/­   for   total   three   transactions   carried   out   through   ATM   of   Ghatlodiya Branch of ICICI Bank on 19/08/2017 between 04.00 to   06.30 hours in the morning and charge of Rs. 23.60/­ was deducted   from joint savings account no.201114349840 belonging to me and my   wife   Devaliben   maintained   in   Drive­in   Road   Branch   of   SBI,   Ahmedabad and as this money was withdrawn from my account by   using duplicate ATM card by (1) Pruthvivallabh Mathuria, resident of   Raghunath   Park,   near   Vadaj   Railway   Crossing,   (2)   Sandipkumar   Thakur, resident of Gokuldham Society, IOC Road, Chandkheda, (3)  Akash Shrimali, resident of Shahpur, Halimni Khadki, Bukhara Pol,   Page 2 of 6 R/CR.MA/4624/2018 ORDER (4) Shivam Vaghela, Krupasagar Society, Chandkheda and (5) Vinay   Bhavsar, resident of Shahpur, Halimni Khadki, Kotadi Pol, this is my   lawful complaint to take legal action against them. My witnesses are   those found during investigation. 

This much of my complaint is true and correct as dictated by me. 

Before me,  sd/­ illegible.

Before me S/d (in English) Police Station Officer Bopal Police Station,

3. The Court below rejected the regular bail application observing as  under:­ (6) Considering   aforesaid   bail   application   and   oral   arguments   advanced for the State, applicant/accused is alleged to have committed   offences   u/s   420,   465,   467,   468,   471,   120(B)  of   the   IPC  and   u/s   66(a)(a)b, c, 66­D of the I.T. Act. Upon perusal of police investigation   papers   and   facts   of   the   complaint,   applicant/accused   and   other   accused  persons forged A.T.M. card data and withdrew Rs.19,500/­   thrice through A.T.M. card and thereby, they have committed offence.   Upon   perusal   of   police   investigation   papers,   it   appears   that   two   accused persons Vinay and Shivam had been working at petrol pump.   When customers approach to fill petrol by making payment through   A.T.M. card, they used to scratch A.T.M. card in the device possessed   and were secretly watching PIN number. In this manner, they used to   collect   data and   PIN  entered   in   the   POS  machine   by  the  customer.   Thereafter,   they   used   to   assign   number   to   data   and   PIN   collected   malafidely. After reaching home, they used to attach the device, copy   data of A.T.M. card from it, paste it into another software, scratch  dummy card and upload the same. After the said number is copied into   dummy card, they used to give the said card and PIN to the co­accused   persons and they had been withdrawing money from different A.T.M.s   in such manner. It clearly appears that present applicant/accused was   also involved in the aforesaid conspiracy. In addition to this, names of   accused persons are also appearing in the F.I.R. It is the submission of   learned advocate for applicant/accused that they have been arrested   on the basis of suspicion. The same is not required to be taken into   consideration. Upon perusal of facts of the complaint and investigation   papers, it appears that applicant/accused, being colluded with other   accused persons, have committed offence by withdrawing the amount   through   dummy   A.T.M.   card.   The   offences   alleged   to   have   been  committed   by   applicant/accused   are   grave   offences.   If   Page 3 of 6 R/CR.MA/4624/2018 ORDER applicant/accused   is   released   on   bail,   it   is   likely   that   his   act   of   misappropriating   money   will   be   encouraged.   Under   such   circumstances, as prima­facie offence is found to have been committed   by applicant/accused, it does not appear to be proper to release him on   bail. Therefore, the following order is passed.

4. Being   dissatisfied   with   the   order   passed   by   the   Court   below  rejecting the regular bail application, the applicant is here before this  Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that his  client is in the judicial custody since 12/10/2017. He submitted that the  investigation   is   over   and   chargesheet   has   been   filed.   He   further  submitted that all the offences are magistrate triable. He also pointed  out   that   one   co­accused   has   been   released   on   bail   by   a   co­ordinate  bench. It is also pointed out that arrest was effected in one particular  F.I.R. and thereafter, by way of a transfer warrant, the applicant­accused  came to be arrested in other cases. In such circumstances, it is prayed  that the applicant be released on bail subject to terms and conditions.

6. This application has been vehemently opposed by the learned APP  appearing for the State. The learned APP after taking instructions from  the   Investigating   Officer,   who   is   present   in   the   court   today   with   the  papers of the  investigation,  submitted that  the applicant is  a habitual  offender.   He   is   involved   in   three   other   cases   similar   in   nature.   The  learned APP gave a fair idea of the modus operandi being adopted by the  applicant and the other co­accused with regard to creating a bogus ATM­ cum­debit card. It is explained to the Court that if a customer would visit  any   petrol­pump   for   the   purpose   of   filling   up   petrol   and   when   time  comes to make the payment, the customer would hand over his ATM­ cum­debit card and such card would be first inserted and swapped in a  gadget. Thereby, the entire data of the ATM­cum­debit card would get  Page 4 of 6 R/CR.MA/4624/2018 ORDER transferred in the gadget. Thereafter, the ATM­cum­debit card would be  actually   swapped   for   the   purpose   of   making   the   payment   for   the  purchase.   The   entire   data,   which   gets   fraudulently   transferred   into   a  particular device, is thereafter being used for the purpose of creating a  bogus ATM­cum­debit card. Such ATM­cum­debit card thereafter is used  fraudulently. The learned APP pointed out that this happened in three  cases. The learned APP further  pointed out that the  entire racket has  surfaced   and   a   team   has   been   operating   in   this   manner.   In   such  circumstances, it is prayed that this court may not exercise its discretion  in favour of the applicant.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and  having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls  for my consideration is whether I should exercise my discretion in favour  of the applicant herein.

8. I am not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel that  one co­accused has been enlarged on bail and therefore, the applicant is  entitled to bail. It appears that a co­ordinate bench of this Court thought  fit to exercise its discretion in favour of one co­accused, but my view is  that parity has no legal force and having regard to the  nature of the  allegations,   I  am   not  inclined  to  release  the   applicant  on  bail  on   the  ground of parity.

9. Considering the modus operandi and the entire racket, I am not  inclined   to   exercise   my   discretion   in   favour   of   the   applicant.   The  applicant appears to be habitually indulging in this type of activities. The  case is one of a large scale conspiracy. It will not be in the interest of the  society   to   release   such   a   person   on   bail.   In   such   circumstances,   this  application fails and is hereby rejected.  Rule is discharged.

Page 5 of 6

R/CR.MA/4624/2018 ORDER

10. Since  I am not inclined to release  the  applicant on bail and as  chargesheet  has   been  filed,  the  trial  Court  is  directed   to  immediately  proceed with the framing of the charge and start with the recording of  the evidence and complete the trial within a period of three months from  the date of the receipt of this order and report the disposal to this Court. 

The trial Court shall make all possible endeavours to conduct the  trial on day­to­day basis. The Investigating Officer shall extend the full  cooperation in expeditious disposal of the trial. 

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)  aruna Page 6 of 6