Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail application No. 1860/2022
State v. Bipin Kumar
FIR No.25/2022
PS Cyber Cell, Mandir Marg
u/s 420/34 IPC
04.11.2022
Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Sh. Bharat Bhushan Ld. counsel for the applicant/accused.
IO ASI Biswajeet Prasad in person.
Arguments heard.
01.) In this case, it is alleged that accused committed cheating
of a sum of Rs.1,26,536.7/- from the complainant. The complainant
received a text message regarding updation of his KYC, when he
clicked the said link, he was asked to share the details of his account
and in this manner, the aforesaid amount was debited from his account
in two transactions. Out of the total amount, Rs.99,500/-, went into the
account of M/s Satyam Electricals of Gautam Verma and it was further
transferred into the account of the applicant for a sum of Rs.86000/-.
02) Bail is prayed on the ground that accused is falsely
implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the alleged
offence. Ld. counsel has also prayed for bail on the ground of violation
of the directions of Hon’ble supreme Court in “Arnesh Kumar v. State
of Bihar & Anr. Crl. Appeal No.1277/2014(SLP) (Crl.
No.9127/2013). It is also pointed out by Ld. defence counsel that vide
order dated 19.10.2022, Ld. Predecessor had put up the matter for
-- 1 of 3 --
: 2 :
consideration of bail application on the point of non compliance of
provisions of section 41-A of CrPC, as no notice was given to the
accused prior to his arrest. Non serving of notice violates the afore
mentioned directions and provisions which entitle the accused for bail.
03). In support reliance is placed upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI in SLP
No.5191 of 2021 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court, has directed that:-
SUMMARY /CONCLUSION
73.
(a) …......................
(b) …...................
(c) “ …......... The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the
compliance of Section 41 and 41-A of the Code. Any non-compliance
would entitled the accused for grant of bail..............”
On being inquired, IO has admitted that no notice u/s 41-A CrPC
was served upon the accused prior to his arrest. Reliance is placed on
the aforesaid two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. (Supra), in which Hon’ble Supreme
Court has directed that it is mandatory to serve the notice upon the
accused prior to his arrest in the offence which are punishable with an
imprisonment for a period less than 7 years or which may extend to
seven years. The offence alleged in the present case is u/s 420 IPC,
squarely falls under the criteria laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
-- 2 of 3 --
: 3 :
in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. Similarly in Satender Kumar Antil
v. CBI consequence of non issuance of notice under 41 and 41-A of the
Code is explained which entitles accused to the grant of bail.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, accused Bipin Kumar is
admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ld. MM/Duty
MM concerned. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned DCP to
brought into his notice for appropriate action in terms of the directions
of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Copy of the order be given dasti.
(Sanjay Khanagwal)
Roster Judge
ASJ-02, NDD/PHC/New Delhi
04.11.2022
-- 3 of 3 --