Uttarakhand High Court
Anuj Kumar @ Kala vs State Of Uttarakhand on 5 August, 2022
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.1591 of 2021
Anuj Kumar @ Kala ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Anuj Kumar @ Kala is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 163 of 2021, under Sections 420, 411, 414, 511, 120B IPC, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The daughter of the informant had tried withdraw money from the ATM. She could not do it. But subsequently, it was revealed that Rs.1 Lakh has been withdrawn by using her ATM. It appeared that somebody had changed her ATM card. A report was lodged on 08.02.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that there is no independent witness of the recovery. The applicant has no criminal history. The recovery is of a very 2 small quantity. The co-accused has already been granted bail.
5. Km. Shivani is the person, had tried to withdraw money from the ATM. In her statement, she revealed that when she tried to withdraw the money, some person who was not masked tried to help her and in that process, it appeared that, that person changed her ATM card. Since, she could not withdraw the money from the ATM, she transferred money through online transaction, which she wanted to withdraw. She was shown the CCTV footages, she could identify the person, who changed her ATM card. It is the applicant.
6. CCTV footages have been filed alongwith the counter affidavit by the State.
7. It is true that co-accused has been enlarged on bail, but he was not seen in the CCTV footages inside the ATM with the witness Km. Shivani.
8. Bail is a rule generally, but where there are chances of repeat offences, bail should definitely be denied. Here is the applicant, who according to the prosecution, under the guise of helping Km. Shivani, changed her ATM card and withdrew money by using it. 3
9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
10. The bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 05.08.2022 Jitendra