Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 4 April, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12108 of 2023 Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Ansar Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned brief holder for the State-respondent.
The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 106 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station- Bharthana, District- Etawah, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and one co-accused Sachin Yadav and according to the FIR, applicant and co-accused Sachin Yadav were the custodian of the ATM and their duty was to put cash in the ATM machine of the bank and it was revealed that there was some problem arose in the ATM machine and after checking it was further revealed that in the ATM machine only Rs. 12,39,000/- was present in stead of total Rs. 23,48,500/- and thus Rs. 11,09,500/- was stolen and it is further mentioned in the FIR that the password of the ATM was with the applicant and another co-accused Sachin Yadav and therefore, it appears that they committed theft of total Rs. 11,09,500/- from the ATM machine of the bank.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false and baseless and applicant did not commit the alleged offence and there is no evidence against him in the present matter and merely on the basis of presumption, he was made accused in the present matter and from the perusal of the FIR and statement of one of the Engineer of the Bank, it appears that the lock was damaged and therefore, it cannot be said that applicant was the only person who could commit the theft and some other miscreants might also commit the theft of money from the ATM machine. He further submitted that all the offences are triable by Magistrate-I Class and maximum punishment provided in the alleged offences is seven years and applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail, in the present matter, since 23.2.2023.
Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant along with co-accused Sachin Yadav committed the theft of public money and he and other co-accused Sachin stolen total Rs. 11,09,500/- from the ATM machine of the bank and applicant and co-accused Sachin were the custodian and as per the statement of the informant, the Manager of the Bank, and other officials of the bank including its Engineer, only custodian of the ATM machine could open the ATM machine and therefore, complicity of the applicant is evident and therefore, considering the seriousness of the allegation, applicant should not be released on bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
Although, all the offences are triable by Magistrate-I Class and maximum punishment provided in the alleged offences is seven years but applicant is one of the custodian of the ATM and it was his duty to protect the cash of the bank, which he used to put along with co-accused Sachin in the ATM machine but in spite of doing so, he committed theft along with co-accused Sachin and he misused his position and from the ATM machine for which he was one of the custodian Rs. 11,09,500/- was stolen and no proper explanation has been given by the applicant in this regard and from the statement of the Manager of the Bank and Engineer of the Bank, it appears that only custodian could open the ATM machine, therefore, considering the nature of allegation, in my view applicant is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected at this stage.
Order Date :- 4.4.2023 KK Patel