Uttarakhand High Court
Amana Thaimei vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 July, 2022
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 1637 of 2021
Amana Thaimei ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, D.A.G. with Ms. Meena Bisht, Brief
Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Amana Thaimei, is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No. 21 of 2019, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC, Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ("the Act"), Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. FIR in the instant case was lodged on 12.12.2019 under Sections 66D of the Act and Sections 120-B and 420 IPC Police Station Cyber PS, District Dehradun. FIR is quite in detail. According to it, through telephonic conversation, in the name of receiving a parcel and subsequent charge, the informant was cheated to the tune of Rs.1,12,63,950/- 2
4. According to the prosecution case, on 17.01.2020, the applicant alongwith the co-accused was apprehended and from his possession various Bank ATM cards, other equipments, laptop etc. were recovered. In fact, in one of the ATM CCTV footages, the applicant was seen withdrawing amount from an A/c No. 3955101008653. The ATM transaction slip was also recovered from the possession of the applicant. SMS alerts of the bank transactions were also transmitted to the mobile phone, which were received by the applicant. In fact, these facts have been given by the State by way of supplementary counter affidavit dated 21.12.2021.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is nothing to connect the applicant with the offence. Nothing has been recovered from him. He is not directly connected with the crime. He has not opened the account.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that various ATM cards, bank documents and ATM transaction slips were recovered from the possession of the applicant. He has been seen in the CCTV footage withdrawing the amount from the ATM.
7. It is really very serious offence. The kind of offence does not know any boundaries. This cheating is done in anonymity.
3
8. In the instant case, according to the prosecution, the applicant has been seen in the ATM CCTV footages withdrawing amount from one of the accounts, in which the amount was deposited by the informant. The ATM transaction slip of the relevant transaction was also allegedly recovered from the applicant. It is also the prosecution case that SMS alerts of the transactions in the bank account, in which the informant deposited money, were received in the mobile phone of the applicant.
9. At the stage of bail, having considered these facts, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be dismissed.
10. The bail application is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 13.07.2022 Jitendra