Adil Akhtar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This is the first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the accused/applicant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.106/2019 registered at Police Station Darima, District Surguja for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 66D of IT Act.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant who is working as an agent under the SBI Bank had obtained the Code, ID and registered mobile number related to the Bank Account of the complainant Indreeyajeet in a fraudulent manner and withdrawn the amount of Rs.53,000/- from the account of complainant and thereby cheated the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant has filed an FIR. Subsequently, the complainant has also written the letter before the police station that the said amount has been returned to his account and he do not want to pursue the case.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He also submits that the applicant has no criminal past. He submits that the concerned amount has already been credited in the account of the complainant. In support of his contention counsel has annexed the relevant bank statement of Mr. Indreeyajeet Singh and submits that the amount of Rs.53,000/- has been deposited in his account. He placed reliance in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014 AIR SCW 3930 and submits that the offence is punishable up-to 7 years and is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class therefore, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. He submits that the accused/applicant is ready to abide by all terms and conditions imposed on him while granting anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail. However, after perusing the case diary, learned State counsel has read over the letter submitted by the complainant before the concerned SHO in which it is stated that the concerned amount has been returned in his account and he does not want to pursue the matter. Opposing the contention of the counsel for the applicant, State counsel submits that the parameters laid down in the Arnesh Kumar (supra) does not attract the facts of the present case. Therefore, the accused/applicant does not deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court after examining the facts satisfied with the contention of the State counsel that the parameters laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (Supra) does not attract the facts of the present case where the parameter laid down under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. is meted out. However, considering the fact that the complainant has himself submitted a letter before the SHO during investigation that concerned amount has been returned in his account and he does not want to pursue the matter, and further considering that applicant has no criminal antecedents, this Court is the opinion that the accused/applicant can be granted anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required,

(b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer,

(c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,

(d) after filing of the charge-sheet, he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial,

(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.