Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Bail Matters 1424/24
Aman Kumar vs. State
FIR No. 0021/24
U/s 420/120B/34 IPC
PS Cyber Police Station
14.08.2024
This is an application u/s 439 Cr.PC moved on behalf of the
applicant/accused Aman Kumar for grant of regular bail.
Present : Ms. Yogita Kaushik, Ld. Addl. PP (substitute) for the
State.
Complainant in person.
Sh. Sumit Ghartal, Ld. Counsel for the
applicant/accused.
IO/SI Ankit Yadav is also present.
Heard. Reply of the bail application perused.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the
applicant/accused that the accused has been falsely implicated in
the present case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence
and make a submission that accused is in JC since 16.04.2024 and
make a request that the accused may kindly be released on bail.
Per contra, the bail application of the applicant/
accused has been strongly opposed by Ld. Addl. PP for the State
and make a submission that the bail application of the applicant/
contd-2-
-- 1 of 6 --
-2-
accused may kindly be dismissed.
It is submitted by the complainant who is an Advocate
by profession that he had received a call appears to be through AI
that his son is in the police custody and he/complainant was asked
to transfer some amount through UPI account and he had
accordingly transferred a sum of Rs. 70,000/-. It is further
submitted by the complainant that he has been cheated by the
accused persons and make a submission that the bail application of
the applicant/accused may kindly be dismissed.
Having heard the submissions made by Ld. Counsel
for the applicant/accused, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the
complainant and after gone through the contents of the bail
application as well as reply filed by IO, this court is of the
considered view that there is total allegation of cheating of Rs.
70,000/- against all the accused persons including the
applicant/accused and Rs. 50,000/- has been paid by the Ld.
Counsel for the accused to the complainant today itself in the
Court.
That the applicant/accused is in JC since 16.04.2024.
The investigation qua the applicant/accused has already been
contd-3-
-- 2 of 6 --
-3-
completed and the chargesheet has also been filed. It will take
considerable long time to conclude the trial. However, the
applicant/accused cannot be kept in JC for an unlimited period.
As recognised, settled and followed by the various
judicial pronouncements, the Court while granting bail to an
accused, is to contemplate and consider-[i] the nature and gravity
of the offenses/charges coupled with the severity of punishment in
case of conviction; [ii] if there are any chances of the accused
absconding once out on bail; [iii] if there is a reasonable
apprehension of the accused influencing the witnesses or tampering
the records when released on bail; [iv] the past conduct and
previous record of the accused as he should neither be a threat to
the society of which he is going to be a part of once again nor there
should be any chance of his repeating the same or indulging in any
other offence; [v] whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; and
[vi] behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused in the
society [Re: Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. (2022) 8 SCC 559]. No
doubt, each of the above depends upon the factual matrix and
circumstances involved in a particular case.
contd-4-
-- 3 of 6 --
-4-
In the considered opinion of this Court, by and large
the nature of offences/charges involved being grave and serious
and/or pendency of other/several criminal cases against an accused
are/cannot be the only basis for rejection of bail to an accused and
the Court has to take a holistic view of the facts and circumstances
[Re.: Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 11 SCC
648]. In view thereof, in the present case also, though the offences
against the applicant are serious in nature, however, that itself
cannot be a ground for refusal for grant of bail to him. Thus, once
the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has also been
filed, there is no fruitful purpose of letting the accused be behind
bars.
Considering the aforesaid, there is every likelihood
that the trial in the matter will take a considerable period of time,
which in the opinion of this Court, means that the applicant will be
languishing behind bars for such time. The same will serve no
purpose [Re.: Shah Alam vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi [N.C.
No.2023:DHC:41]].
Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances,
the applicant/accused is admitted on regular bail on furnishing
contd-5-
-- 4 of 6 --
-5-
personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand
Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
Ld.JMFC/Link JMFC/CJM/ACJM, subject to the following terms
and conditions :-
i. That during the period of bail, the accused shall not try to
contact directly or indirectly or through any of the electronic
mode to the victim/complainant and family members of the
victim/complainant or any public witness.
ii. That during the pendency of the trial of this case FIR, the
accused shall not get himself involved in the similar nature
of offence.
iii. The accused shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the court.
iv. That during the period of bail, the accused shall furnish his
mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his
mobile phone on for 24 X 7 and will respond as and when
called by the concerned IO/SHO.
The bail application stands disposed off accordingly.
However, it is pertinent to mention that nothing
expressed herein shall tantamount to be an expression on the merits
contd-6-
-- 5 of 6 --
-6-
of this case.
Copy of order be provided to the parties and also be
sent to Jail Authorities.
(Satish Kumar)
ASJ-03(North)/Rohini Courts
Delhi/14.08.2024
-- 6 of 6 --