Allahabad High Court
Sandeep Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 11 February, 2020
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- BAIL No. - 1420 of 2019 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunakar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. It is submitted that information regarding the alleged incident was initially given by the bank of Baroda to the A.G.S. Tansact Technologies Ltd. which is a parent company to the M/s Secure Value India Limited through email and after receiving this information, the informant had inquired from all three accused persons who could not give any satisfactory reply then it was found out after enquiry that a sum of Rs. 35,92,000/- were missing.
3. As per the prosecution case, the cash loader of Secure Value India Limited in District Bahraich had embezzled amount along with the co-accused persons and have committed embezzlement from three ATM Machines of the aforesaid company and allegedly Rs. 35,92,000/- has been embezzled and lesser amount has been inserted into the ATM machines. This embezzlement has been done by the accused persons namely Ashish Kumar Jaiswal, Dharmendra Kumar and Ankur Srivastava by tempering the electronic general of the ATM Machine using the admin password and by forging documents and sending the copy of said documents through pen drive to the office of the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the matter is triable by magistrate. Co-accused Ashish Kumar has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 07.12.2019 passed by this Court in Bail No.2381 of 2019. The accused-applicant is languishing in jail since 28.12.2018. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the accused-applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the accused-applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant states that the accused-applicant is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- before the trial court to which the learned Additional Government Advocate has no objection.
7. Considering the fact that the matter is triable by magistrate and the accused-applicant is languishing in jail for last more than one year and ground of parity, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail.
8. Let the applicant-Sandeep Kumar, involved in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 10/2018, under Sections 379/409/467/468/471/34 I.P.C. and Section 43-A and 66 Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Cyber Crime, Lucknow, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
(vii) The applicant shall deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- before the trial court within two months from his release from jail.
9. In the event of breach of any afore-mentioned conditions, the bail of the accused-applicant shall stand automatically cancelled, and he will be taken into judicial custody forthwith, without seeking leave of the Court.
[D.K. Singh, J.] Order Date :- 11.2.2020 MVS/-