High CourtsSingle Bench

Abhishek Shaw vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 29 December 2023 · Citation: (2023) 12 UK CK 0197

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 420 · Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 — Section 66D
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2489 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 294 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Applicant Abhishek Shaw is in judicial custody in FIR No.570 of 2022, under Sections 420, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

3.

It is the case of online fraud. The informant received a phone call and an app was downloaded in his telephone. Subsequently, the informant realised that Rs. 10,50,000/- have already been transferred from his account.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that nothing was recovered from him; he has been falsely implicated; the family members of the applicant have already paid the entire amount to the informant.

5.

Learned State Counsel would submit that under a conspiracy, this online fraud has been done. The amount was deposited in two accounts. Out of the deposited amount, Rs. 1,50,000/- were withdrawn on 25.10.2022 from an ATM at Kolkata, which was withdrawn by the applicant and he has been spotted withdrawing the money in the CCTV footages. It is also argued that the amount so transferred from the account of the informant, was subsequently transferred in some other accounts through online banking, which was done by using some mobile phones, and those mobile phones were recovered from the applicant.

6.

It is a much serious case of cheating innocent people. The informant is a retired person. He was cheated. The amount was transferred from his account.

7.

Having considered the entire allegations and the kind of material that is available, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

8.

The bail application is rejected.