Gaurav Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 7220 of 2019 • Gaurav Yadav S/o Shri Satyendra Singh Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o 269 / 2 Plot - 98, Sadanand Nagar Post - Harjidar Kanpur U. P., Uttar Pradesh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Ganj, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicant.

:

Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Shri Sameer Sharma, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 20.12.2019 1.

The applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 0372/2019 registered at Police Station : Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of IPC. 2.

As per the prosecution case, the complainant who is the Manager of Transaction Solution India Pvt. Ltd. Lodged a complaint against unknown persons that the details of amount deposited and withdrawn from Corporation Bank ATM, Station Road Raipur, does not match and there appears to be some technical manipulations with the ATM machine by which an amount of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 10,000/- has been withdrawn from account of one Vimal Kumar Yadav by unknown persons. On the basis of that, after completion of investigation, offence has been registered against the applicant and he has been

arrested.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the applicant has been arrested only on the basis of suspicion and police has not seized any article from the possession of applicant. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 03.10.2019, therefore, he may be released on bail.

4.

On the other hand, State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that applicant has previously committed the same crime. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6.

Perusal of the case-diary goes to show that, after investigation, complainant Vilas Kannoj, who is a Manager of Transaction Solution India Pvt. Ltd., has stated that apart from this transaction there are many other transactions of forged withdrawal have been made after disrupting electricity supply of ATM machine. Applicant has previously committed the same crime which shows that he is a habitual offender. 7.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the crime, detention period of the applicant, at this stage, I am not inclined to release him on bail. 8.

Accordingly, his application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Vijay