Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2018
M.Cr.C. No.18539/2018 1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.18539/2018
(Vikas vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated:17/05/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard, Case-diary perused.
This is a repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.13/2018, Police Station Cyber Cell, District Indore, concerning offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
First application came to be dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 04/04/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 11265/2018.
As per prosecution case, on 29/11/2017, the complainant lodged a complaint at Cyber Cell, Zonal Area, Indore, mentioning that one unknown person texted him on whatsapp application from mobile No.80857 70272 and messaged him to transfer Rs.2000/- in Phonepay wallet and in return he will transfer Rs.2300/- in Paytm wallet. Complainant transferred Rs.2000/- on Phonepay wallet and also sent the screenshot of the same to the user of the mobile 8085770272. The aforesaid amount was withdrawn by the user, however he did not transferred Rs.2300/- in complainant's Paytm wallet. The present M.Cr.C. No.18539/2018 2 applicant was implicated in the present crime on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused persons, that the was also involved in the present crime by hacking the mobile data of various mobiles and misused other persons mobile wallets fraudulently.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R and there is no allegation against the applicant that he has taken any amount for the complainant or cheated him. The applicant has been implicated in the present offence on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused persons as well as his statement recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, which is not legally admissible evidence. Applicant is a youth aged about 22 years who has no criminal past alleged against him. Applicant is in custody since 14/02/2018. Investigation is over, charge-sheet has been filed and trial is likely to take sufficiently long time in its conclusion. There is no apprehension of the applicant running away from the course of justice or tampering of the evidence, if released on bail. Lastly, it is submitted that co-accused Sandeep has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 07/05/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.16351/2018 and the applicant claims parity with the co-accused as the case of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused. Under these circumstances, counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the M.Cr.C. No.18539/2018 3 application filed by the applicant be dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.80,000/-(Rupees eighty thousand Only), with two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.
This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2018.05.17 18:23:26 +05'30'