High Court released applicant Dileep Kumar on bail in a cyber crime trial case involving cheating and fraud under IPC and IT Act, subject to furnishing personal bond and two sureties.
Release on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each of like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 59
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58244 of 2022
Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tapendra Pratap Singh,Shailesh Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Heard Sri Tapendra Pratap Singh and Shri Shailesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Dileep Kumar, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 25 of 2021, registered under Sections 419, 420, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., 66-C and 66-D of Information Technology Act, Police Station- Cyber Crime, District- Jhansi, during pendency of trial.
According to prosecution version, informant Ankit Tiwari lodged FIR on 22.11.2021 stating therein that he had applied for SBI credit card on 3.10.2021, which was received after verification through courier on 13.10.2021; on 20.10.2021, some lady who named herself as Nikita contacted him on his mobile phone and she told him the manner of activating said credit card and after her instruction, the card got activated; he was told that another call regarding extension of limit will also come; thereafter a message came that total transaction of Rs. 1,10,220/- deducted through his card; Bank has insisted that he will have to pay amount of 1,10,220/-; he became victim of cyber crime; during investigation, police arrested four persons on 10.7.2022 and from their search, 9 mobile phone, one laptop, one ATM, one Adhar Card and cash of Rs. 3,735/- was recovered; from personal search of applicant, one mobile OPPO F7 from his right hand in which sim no. 9999239945 of airtel is installed and one light grey mobile in which sim no. 85276221641 of airtel is installed and Rs.1105/- cash have been recovered from the right pocket of his lower; on interrogation, they confessed their involvement in the present case of cyber crime before the police.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the present first information report and only on the basis of his confessional statement of co-accused given before the Police, he has been implicated in the present case, which confessional statement has no evidentiary value as per Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that neither
the applicant has been arrested from the spot nor anything incriminating material has been recovered from his possession or his pointing out. There is no public or independent witness on the basis of which it can be said that the present applicant is involved in the commission of alleged offence. It is further submitted that identically circumstanced co-accused, Raj Kapoor and Kitty have been enlarged on bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 06.12.2022 13.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 46607 of 2022 and 43014 of 2022 respectively. The case of the present applicant is on better footing to that of the aforesaid co-accused. As such the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 11th July, 2022.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) 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.
(ii) 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)
Order Date :- 20.12.2022
Sushil/-
Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.21 17:50:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail in the present charge sheeted case involving sections 419, 420, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., 66-C and 66-D of Information Technology Act.
Whether the applicant's previous bail status for co-accused justifies his release on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶11
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Dileep Kumar
Shiv Shanker Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Shiv Shanker Prasad
Parties & counsel
