ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.PC., prayer has been made by the bail petitioner for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 59 of 2021 dtd. 24/3/2021, registered at PS Baddi, District Solan, under Sec. 420 of IPC.

(2.) Respondent State has filed status report and ASI Pratap, PS. Baddi, has come present with records. Records perused and returned. Perusal of record/status report reveals that on 24/3/2021, complainant namely Rakesh Kumar lodged a complaint to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Baddi, alleging therein that on 21/3/2021 at 12:48 PM, he received one SMS on his mobile number that his card will be blocked, please call on helpline No. 7029051024 within 24 hours. Complainant alleged that when he called the above number, call did not get connected, but at 9:00pm, he received a call from 918391879494 that his KYC needs to be updated and for that purpose, he has to recharge his phone with Rs.10..00 He further disclosed to the police that he opened the ICICI application on his mobile phone for recharge, but phone got switched off and when he again switched on the phone, he found that Rs.1,00,000.00 has been withdrawn from his account number. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police lodged FIR as detailed hereinabove and during investigation found the involvement of the present bail petitioner, who at that relevant time, was lodged in Jail at Dhanbad, Jharkhand. Investigation reveals that bail petitioner herein using KYC of the complainant Rakesh Kumar transferred sum of Rs.41,600.00 in his bank account. Though pursuant to production warrants issued in the case at hand, bail petitioner was produced before the Magistrate concerned, but now he again stands lodged in jail at Dhanbad Jharkhand. Since during investigation, brother of the bail petitioner has returned the sum of Rs.41600.00 allegedly withdrawn by the bail petitioner from the bank account of the complainant, prayer has been made on his behalf for grant of regular bail in the case at hand.

(3.) Mr. Narender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the Challan in the competent court of law contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail deserves outright rejection.