Ashok Kumar Manjhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2020

[Cites 10, Cited by 6]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ashok Kumar Manjhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2020

This is third application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant Ashok Kumar Manjhi was arrested on 09/04/2018 in connection with Crime No.46/2018 registered at Police Station Cyber Cell, District- Bhopal (M.P) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 66-D of the Information & Technology Act.

As per the prosecution case, various types of pension schemes are being run by the Department of Social Justice and Disabled Persons Welfare of Madhya Pradesh Government, which are being implemented online through the pension portal developed by the NIC Madhya Pradesh. Pension is paid to such beneficiaries whose cases are approved by Janpad panchayat or urban bodies for pension. Currently pension is being paid to about 37 Lakhs beneficiaries. Co-accused Kuldeep in connivance with applicant and other co- accused person hacked the accounts of 720 beneficiaries and also opened 12 accounts in the name of other persons and took ATM cards of those accounts. Thereafter they hacked accounts of 720 pensioners and changed their user ID and password, due to which the pension granted to these pensioners, deposited in the account of these 12 persons and thereafter Signature Not Verified SAN applicant and other co-accused withdrew that amount and thus they cheated Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.11.11 14:35:12 IST 2 MCRC-37230-2020 several persons and also misappropriated public money. It is alleged that the applicant Ashok Kumar Manjhi allured the people and opened their account in bank and also took ATM card from them and co-accused Kuldeep transferred the amount of 720 beneficiaries by hacking in these 12 accounts and took it out through the ATM card.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. The allegation against the applicant is that he in connivance with co-accused Kuldeep and Maan Singh hacked the accounts of 720 pensioners and misappropriated public fund to the tune of Rs.37 Lakhs. Co-accused Maan Singh has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10/09/2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.26646/2018 and co-accused Kuldeep has been enlarged on bail by the trial Court vide order dated 31/10/2018. The allegations against the applicant are similar in nature to the co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail, so on the ground of parity also the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. The applicant has no criminal past. He has been in custody since 09/04/2018 and the trial is still pending, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that co-accused Kuldeep in connivance with applicant and other co-accused persons hacked the accounts of 720 pensioners and misappropriated public fund to the tune of Rs.37 Lakhs. The first bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 10/09/2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.30167/2018 and second application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30/01/2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.48968/2018 and thereafter there is no change in circumstance. So, the applicant should not be released on bail.

The case of co-accused Maan Singh who has been granted bail by this Court, is not similar to the present applicant. This Court granted bail to co-

Signature Not Verified SAN

accused Mansingh on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.11.11 14:35:12 IST 3 MCRC-37230-2020 that the co-accused Mansingh withdrew the amount from any account, while from the evidence collected by the prosecution it is apparent that applicant allured the people and opened their account in bank and also took ATM card from them and co-accused Kuldeep transferred the amount of 720 beneficiaries by hacking in 12 accounts and took it out through the ATM cards.

The first bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 10/09/2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.30167/2018 and second application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30/01/2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.48968/2018 and thereafter there is no change in circumstance, except custody period of the applicant. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its Director, (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail, cannot be granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to conduct the defence. Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 observed "It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments."

It is alleged that the applicant allured the people and opened their account in bank and also took ATM card from them and thereafter in connivance with other co-accused persons misappropriated public fund to the tune of Rs.37 Lakhs.

So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the enormity of fraud, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.11.11 14:35:12 IST 4 MCRC-37230-2020 JUDGE as Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.11.11 14:35:12 IST

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court