Dharmendra Harinarayan Kumar v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2757 OF 2024 Dharmendra Harinarayan Kumar ...
Applicant.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ...
Respondent.
------------------- Mr Ranjeeth Patil i/b. Mr Tejas Modak, Advocate for Applicant Ms Veera Shinde, APP for the State.
--------------------- by RAJIV BABARAOJI RAUT Date: 2024.10.10 09:55:53 +0530 RAJIV BABARAOJI RAUT
CORAM
:
ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATED :
OCTOBER 09, 2024.
PC:
1. Heard.
2. By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.155 of 2023, registered with Mhaswad Police Station, District: Satara for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471, 417, 379, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 65, 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2005.
3. In the present matter the offence is committed in an organized manner by the accused and thereby the accused persons withdrew more than Rupees Three Crores
from the various Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) on many occasions.
4. It was the modus operandi of the accused, including the applicant, that while withdrawing the amount from the ATM to put a hand in the ATM so that the ATM should report an error. Then, even on receiving money because of the error reported by the Machine the bank used to re-deposit the amount in the account of the accused. All this has been captured in the CCTV footage.
5. The applicant is from Uttar Pradesh. The applicant came to Maharashtra and stayed in a Lodge with the co-accused and committed the alleged offence. The applicant was seen in the CCTV footage while withdrawing the amount and also putting his hand in the compartment where-from cash comes out from the ATM.
6. Further from the CDR it is prima-facie established that the applicant's location was nearby the ATMs.
7. Thus, considering the total amount defrauded by the applicant and the modus operandi, there is every likelihood that the applicant may commit similar offences if he is released on bail.
8. In the circumstances, as sufficient incriminating material is available on record which prima-facie shows the complicity of
the applicant in the alleged offence and further as the huge public money is involved, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Bail Application is rejected.
(ANIL S. KILOR, J)