MOHD. TAHA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application seeking regular bail in case crime No. 45 of 2012 under Sections 420, 120B IPC and under Section 45/66/66D/71 of the IT Act, Police Station Karanprayag, District Chamoli. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that co -accused Mohd. Ahmed and Mohd. Ajmal requested the applicant to give his ATM Card and bank account number, so that they may request their relatives staying in Dubai to deposit the amount in his account, as they have no bank account. Believing them, applicant had handed over his ATM Card and told his account number to the co -accused, however, they had misused his bank account by getting a deposit in that bank account. He further submits that if provisions of Information Technology Act are invoked, then Section 420 of IPC would not be attracted.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants further submits that the maximum punishment for the offences punishable under Section 45/66/66D/71 of the IT Act is of 3 years and the offence is triable by Magistrate, therefore, it is the legal right of the applicants to be enlarged on bail. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, bail application is allowed. Let the applicants be released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/ - by each of them and two sureties by each of them, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned.