Madhya Pradesh High Court
Larenc @ Tony @ Kaliya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 16 August, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 29195/2018
(Lorens alias Tony alias Kaliya Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, dated : 16/8/18
Shri Rajmani Bansal, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Vivek Bhargava, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Crime Branch, District Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.08/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 379 and 420 of the IPC.
Prosecution story, in short, is that complainant Dinesh Singh Tomar made a complaint to the effect that amount of Rs.9,90,627/- had been withdrawn from his bank account and transferred to two different accounts which were in the name of Govind Shrivas and Ravindra Kumar Yadav. During investigation, co-accused Imran Khan was apprehended and it surfaced that the Imran Khan along with co-accused Harimohan , Kalam Khan and Hillary was involved in cloning the ATM cards and used to procure Skimmers from China and sell it to the co-accused persons. It also transpired that some skimmers and ATM cloning devices had been sold by Imran to the present applicant in Delhi, who was also involved in cloning the ATM cards. Applicant was apprehended and on search ATM cloning material was seized from the applicant, who is a Nigerian national. Overall Rs.10,86,000/-, ATM cloning device, ATM cards etc. have THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 29195/2018 (Lorens alias Tony alias Kaliya Vs. State of M.P.) been seized from the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He has also pressed into service the decision in the case of Rini Johar Vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2016 SC 2679) to contend that no notice under 41-A of the Cr.P.C. has been served on the applicant and, as such, the guidelines as laid down in the said case have not been adhered to in the instant case. It is further submitted that neither the applicant has committed any theft nor withdrawn any amount from any account. He has not used any credit card. He is an employee in a Private Firm and presently resides in Delhi though he is a permanent resident of Nigeria. There is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail. He is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for its rejection contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out. It is submitted that the offence is serious one and such offences are on a rise having assumed alarming proportions in the country.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the opinion of this Court, notice as contemplated under 41A of the Cr.P.C. is required to be given when arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41 thereof, whereas in the instant case the police THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 29195/2018 (Lorens alias Tony alias Kaliya Vs. State of M.P.) Authorities had sufficient reasons to make an arrest under section 41(1) of the Cr.P.C. as the facts and circumstances of the case clearly fall within the purview of section 41(1)(b)(ii)
(a) and (c). That apart, procedural lapses, if any, by the Police Authorities would not mitigate the gravity of the offence committed by the applicant or make him entitled to bail. As such, the decision in the case of Rini Johar (Supra) can be of no assistance to the applicant being clearly distinguishable on facts.
Thus, considering the nature of allegations and gravity of offence coupled with the role attributed to the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case for grant of bail.
The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) Digitally signed by ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2018.08.17 13:33:46 +05'30'