Allahabad High Court
Sachin vs State Of U.P. on 3 January, 2022
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43830 of 2021 Applicant :- Sachin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Subir Lal,Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
This case has been taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Mr. Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, Sachin with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 08 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 66 and 66-C of I.T. Act, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during pendency of trial.
As per the allegations made in the F.I.R., someone hacked Amazon e-commerce portal and entering into the ID and Password of the currently employed branch manager at Dadri marked "pick up done" on certain 167 high value shipments, meaning thereby, that the shipments were already with the concerned customers, showing the same as "return pick up" schedule but rather marked the same as "pick up done" and by doing so an amount of Rs.57,50,000/- was transacted from their account back to the customers.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated as there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the applicant in the transactions as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that it is the applicant's next door neighbour, Anil Beniwal, who has illegally used the Wi-Fi of the applicant to manage the forgery, which has caused loss to the person as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the account numbers mentioned in the F.I.R. do not belong to the applicant nor there is any account of the applicant which has been operated for the transactions causing loss to the person concerned. He further submits that no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 120-B and 34 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant, even if it is presumed that the applicant is involved in any manner in the transactions as alleged in the F.I.R., only sections 66 and 66-C of Information Technology Act is made out for which the punishment provided is of three years. Even otherwise, the offences are triable by Magistrate. Applicant is languishing in jail since 26.7.2021. Applicant has no criminal history except the present one. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, he submits that there is no chance of applicant freeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, does not dispute the fact as made by learned counsel for the applicant.
Seeing the period of detention of the applicant for the alleged offence and considering the material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 3.1.2022 Rahul.