Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE
1
M.Cr.C. No.16351/2018
(Sandeep vs. The State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated: 7/05/2018
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
This is first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.13/2018, registered at Police Station- Cyber Cell, Zonal Ara, Indore for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 471/34 of the IPC and sec.66-D of the I.T. Act.
As per prosecution case, on 29.11.2017 the complainant gave an application to Cyber Cell, Zonal Ara Indore mentioning that he is a businessman and one unknown person text him on whatsapp application from mobile No. 80857-70272 and messaged him that he will transfer Rs.2,300/- on Paytm wallet and in lieu of that the complainant need to transfer Rs.2,000/- on Phonepay wallet. Thereafter complainant sent Rs.2,000/- in phonepay wallet and sent the screenshot of same to the user of mobile No. 80857-70272, thereafter he withdrew the amount of Rs.2,000/- from the account of the complainant but he did not transfer Rs.2,300/- on his Paytm wallet.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence which is alleged by the prosecution. The registered owner of the Mobile No. 80857-70272 is Dayaram Gwali, who is resident of Rajgarh (M.P.). The police recorded the statement of Dayaram who deposed that he purchased the aforesaid mobile number from the applicant Sandeep Rathore. Police recorded the memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act of applicant Sandeep Rathore in which he disclosed that he generated the forged sim card whose mobile number was THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE 2 M.Cr.C. No.16351/2018 (Sandeep vs. The State of M.P.) 89595-38037 which was linked on the Aadhar number of Radheshyam and further it was forwarded to co-accused Jitendra Meena. Then police arrested the co-accused Jitendra Meena and in his disclosure statement it has come that he was using mobile number 80857-70272 and he transferred the amount of Rs.2,000/- in the Phonepay wallet the account of co- accused-Sohail who is friend of Jitendra Meena. Then police arrested the applicant Sandeep in the present crime.
Learned counsel further submits that the mobile number 80857-70272 which was used by co-accused Jitendra Meena has not been seized by the police and the applicant is implicated in the present crime on the basis of disclosure statement of co- accused Dayaram. Co-accused Jitendra Meena has also been enlarged on bail by Juvenile Justice Board. It is further submitted that no cheating has been done by the applicant. The applicant is a youth aged 21 years. He is under custody since 28.1.2018. Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed. The conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long time and there is no apprehension of the applicant running away from the course of justice, if released on bail. Under these circumstances, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
Learned counsel for the State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant coupled with material available in the case-diary, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE 3 M.Cr.C. No.16351/2018 (Sandeep vs. The State of M.P.) sum of Rs.80,000/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand) with two solvent sureties of Rs.40,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.
This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE mk Digitally signed by MUKTA KAUSHAL Date: 2018.05.08 16:06:35 +05'30'