Dismissed

Hardik Kotecha and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC20 Apr 2018CRLMB/4913/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by Harik and Manharlal Kotecha. They were accused of hacking accounts and withdrawing funds. The anchor judge found the likelihood of acquittal remote and the evidence cogent, therefore, dismissed the application and rejected the bail plea.

What did the court decide?

The criminal misc. bail application is accordingly rejected.

Hardik Kotecha and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Rajasthan HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 4913/2018

¶3

Hardik Kotecha S/o Shri Manharlal Kotecha B/c Lohana, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Manharniwas, Golden Main Road, 13-14 Vijay Plot, Police Station Malviya Nagar, Rajkot, Gujrat At Present Director Kotecha Industries Ltd. Mahsaya First Harihar Society, Sher Number 01, Distt. Rajkota, State Gujrat. (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶4

Manharlal Kotecha S/o Shri Amarsibhai, R/o First Harihar Society, Sher Number 01, Distt. Rajkot, State Gujrat. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP For complainant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

20/04/2018

¶12

Petitioners have filed this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶13

F.I.R. No.54/2018, was registered at Police Station Vidhayakpuri for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 66-C, 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have not hacked the account. It is also contended that petitioners are willing to refund the amount.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMB-4913/2018]

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have stated that petitioners have hacked the account. Petitioners hacked the account and withdrawn Rs.96,00,000/- from 16.09.2017 to 24.09.2017. The money was transferred in the account of various companies. In the companies to which the amount was transferred, persons who were resident of slums have been made Directors. It is also contended that more than three crore of rupees is outstanding towards complainant and more than five crore of rupees is out standing towards Dena Bank.

¶18

I have considered the contentions.

¶19

Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the complainant, I am not inclined to allow the bail application.

¶20

The criminal misc. bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

¶21

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶22

Arti/94

Hardik Kotecha and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardik Kotecha and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranay Sharma Vs C B S E and Ors.

Pramod Kumar Kulshrestha Vs State of Raj and Ors.

State of Raj and Anr. Vs Murari Lal Sharma

Narendra Kumar Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mukesh Kumar Bakolia Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shareef Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp