Punjab-Haryana High Court
Altaf vs State Of Haryana on 27 September, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-37400-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-37400-2024
Reserved on: 12.09.2024
Pronounced on: 27.09.2024
Atlaf ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate and
Mr. Navjot Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, D.A.G., Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
53 06.04.2024 Cyber Crime Nuh, 419/420/467/468/471/411
District Nuh, Haryana IPC
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, 1973 read with Section 167 (2) and Section 482 CrPC, seeking regular bail.
2. In paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:
"3. That the facts leading to the registration of the FIR are that the law was set in motion in the present case on the basis of a secret information received by the police party to the effect that a person namely Altaf, who was working as a security guard at Hitachi ATM was involved in cyber crime and withdrawal of money from ATM through fake and forged ATM Cards on commission basis. The informer apprised that even on that day, the petitioner was present and could be apprehended alongwith the illegitimately withdrawn amount. Accordingly, raid was conducted and applicant was apprehended. On his search, one mobile phone was recovered having suspicious chats and recordings etc. along with sixteen ATM Cards, Rs.3.28 Lakhs cash and one ATM Swipe Machine was recovered from him. petitioner could not substantiate The the possession of the article aforementioned and accordingly the FIR was registered and Jyoti Sharma investigations were taken up in the matter."2024.10.03 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-37400-2024
4. The petitioner's counsel explicitly refers to para 4 of the bail petition, which reads as follows:
"4. That the case of the prosecution against the petitioner is without any basis whatsoever. The petitioner is merely a Guard at the afore-stated ATM machine in village Jamalgarh-Punhana Road, employed by its owner. As such, upon the requests of the various bank customers, the petitioner would assist them by withdrawing cash from the ATM machine at their behest. There was no foul play whatsoever, as is alleged by the prosecution."
5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
6. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:
"4. That during the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested upon receipt of appropriate incriminating evidence against him. The recovered articles were duly taken into possession in terms of a detailed memo prepared in this regard. The petitioner herein was interrogated while being in custody and upon interrogation he conceded his involvement in the present crime. He also disclosed regarding the involvement of the other co-accused in the crime with him. The record regarding the swipe machine was sought from the Axis bank. The Hitachi company which was operating the ATM where the petitioner was working had provided the CCTV footage for 05.06.2024 & 06.06.2024. The said CCTV footage was analysed and the analysis the same reveals that the petitioner could be seen in the same repeatedly making cash withdrawals from the ATM.
5. That during the course of further investigation, the details regarding the SIM Cards which were found in the cell phone recovered from the petitioner and it transpired that the said SIM card belonging to Asam khan and Inbisat. Inbisat was joined in investigation by the investigating agency and he disclosed that the SIM card had been got issued by him on 05.02.2023 and had been handed over by him to his real brother Muiya. He further apprised that Muiya and petitioner were friends and accordingly the petitioner had acquired the said cell phone. It shall be apposite to mention here that the complicity of the said Muiya had been disclosed by the petitioner in his disclosure statement as well. Nothing incriminating surfaced against Inbisat.
7. That notice was issued to the Hitachi company to provide the details regarding the ATM withdrawals done from the ATM machine, where the petitioner was deployed as a Guard and the same was taken into possession. Further investigations revealed that the Swipe machine recovered from the petitioner had been stolen and in this regard FIR No.118 dated 24.05.2024 stood registered at P.S. Chaupanki, district Bhiwadi for commission of offence punishable under Section 380 IPC. The bank account statements of the persons in favour of whom the ATM cards recovered from the petitioner were found to have been Jyoti Sharma 2024.10.03 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-37400-2024 issued, were obtained and taken on record.
10. That the commission petitioner of a is accused crime. serious of His complicity is writ large by the fact of recovery of the money alongwith as many as 16 ATM Cards, which were not his legitimate belongings. To top it all, the petitioner could be seen making ATM withdrawals, using the said ATM cards in the CCTV footage provided by the Hitachi company. He had been committing the crime acting in league with the absconding accused Muiya."
8. The petitioner took advantage of the system's breaches, vulnerabilities, and weaknesses that the Executive did not plug and fix. Further, the lack of enforcement and absence of meritocracy bolded the petitioner to dupe simple and unsuspecting people.
9. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. As concerned for bail under Section 167(2) CrPC for delay in filing challan, as per para no.8 of reply, challan in the case has already been filed on 04.07.2024.
10. Petitioner's next ground for bail is prolonged pre-trial custody. Per the custody certificate dated 11-09-2024, the petitioner's custody is five months and five days, which cannot be said to be prolonged, given the magnitude and severity of the crime and its impact. However, if the trial does not conclude within one year of the petitioner's custody, in that case, the petitioner may apply for bail before the trial Court, which shall consider bail on the prolonged pre-trial incarceration. The period of delay attributed to the petitioner shall not be counted in this one-year period.
11. Given the above, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The impact of crime would not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.
12. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
13. Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 27.09.2024 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. Jyoti Sharma 2024.10.03 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3