Bail application by two accused in an ATM forgery and cyber fraud case; petitioners cited absence of incriminating seizure, disputed TIP identification and CCTV identification; State relied on CCTV footage and mobile tower location evidence. Court declined bail and dismissed the prayer.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction BA No. 1914 of 2024 With
BA No. 1993 of 2024
------
Prabhakar Kumar@ Saurabh ……… …… Petitioner
{In BA No. 1914 of 2024} Nitish Kumar ……….. Petitioner {In BA No.1993 of 2024} Versus The State of Jharkhand ……………. Opposite Party {In both cases}
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, APP : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, S.PP.
------
Order No. 6 Dated- 26.06.2024
When the matter is called out, the learned counsels for the parties are present.
The learned counsels for the petitioners submit that there is allegations regarding committing offences with the help of ATM related forgery in which the total amount of Rs. 69667 in five transactions were allegedly withdrawn from the deposit of the victim. The allegations allegedly pertain to be of Union Bank ATM unit located at the Nigam Office, College Road in Deoghar. The counsels further submitted that no incriminating seizure have been made from the possession of the petitioners. Moreover, the mobile no. 9931081312 which was affixed on the said ATM booth does not belong to the petitioners. The petitioners are also not the beneficiaries of the accounts in which the deposits were made. The counsels further referred to the statements made by the State wherein they have stated that they were identified in TIP, to which the counsels for the petitioners have responded that the question of TIP not at all arise because the petitioners were not even seen by the so-called victim in the particular ATM booth, so how can any identification be made of them, neither were the petitioners at the alleged place of occurrence in any way. The counsel for the petitioner namely Nitish Kumar further submitted that the mobile number though which connection was made
to the victim, belonged to the petitioner Sudhanshu Kumar and not to this petitioner. He further, submitted that the petitioner cannot be identified even by the CCTV footage of the particular ATM booth, so it is not possible for him to be identified in any TIP. The counsels further submit that the petitioners have been charge-sheeted and apart from this case, they also have two other criminal antecedents. Moreover, the petitioners are in custody since 07.11.2023 and therefore, they may be enlarged on bail.
The learned counsels for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submitted that primary identification of both these petitioners have been made by the CCTV footage which was located at the Tanishq Jewellery and PK Enterprises, from where purchases have been made, have also corresponded to the withdrawals that have been indicated in the FIR, and therefore, there is no question why they cannot be identified and also both of these petitioners were identified in the footage together and so they have been linked together. During investigation, the mobile number indicated in the ATM booth had been found to be co-related with the petitioner’s mobile number. The counsels further submit that the mobile tower locations have also located the mobile of the petitioners in the places where the transactions were made particularly Tanishq Jewellery and PK Enterprises. Further, in para 2 of the casediary it is indicated that it was the petitioner Prabhakar Kumar who came into the ATM booth and gave certain directions, when the victim was unable to withdraw the money and therefore submitted that identification by TIP would not be misleading of the petitioner Prabhakar Kumar. Further, para 15 of the case-diary indicates that both of them have been identified in the CCTV of the ATM booth as well as in the Tanishq Jewellery and PK enterprises.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties and in the facts and circumstances on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners in connection with Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case No. 41 of 2023. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioners named above stands dismissed.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Abha/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners should be enlarged on bail in a cyber fraud case involving alleged ATM forgery despite their custody since 07.11.2023.
Prabhakar Kumar @ Saurabh
Nitish Kumar
The State of Jharkhand
Ratnaker Bhengra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
