Delhi High Court
Milan Upadhyay vs State on 31 January, 2019
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31.01.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 108/2019
MILAN UPADHYAY ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Ray with Mr. Lokesh Choudhary and Mr.
Dilip Kumar Nayak, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State.
SI Subhash Chand, PS Okhla Industrial Area.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.319/2018 under Section
408 IPC, Police Station Okhla Industrial Area. Petitioner has been in
custody since 19.10.2018.
2. Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of an employee of
SIS Cash Services Pvt. Ltd. Company, which is entrusted with
replenishing cash in various ATMs of several banks.
3. The allegations in the FIR is that it was found that there was a
shortfall of Rs.45 Lakhs over a period of 6 months, which was
reported by several banks, in the ATMs where money was loaded
through their Company. It is alleged that two of the co-accused, who
were entrusted with loading cash, are suspected to have siphoned off
the money.
4. As per the case of the prosecution, the name of the petitioner,
who is an ex-employee of the said Company, having worked there till
2017, surfaced in disclosure statement made by one of the co-accused.
Further allegation is that the call detail record shows connection
between the petitioner and one of the co-accused. Further,
investigation has revealed that the petitioner has deposited money into
the account of one of the co-accused and has paid money to the other
co-accused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
been falsely implicated. He submits that there is no material to
connect the petitioner with the subject offence. He submits that the
investigation reveals that the alleged phone number through which the
petitioner is stated to be in touch with one of the co-accused belongs
to another co-accused and does not belong to the petitioner though it
was stated that it was being used by the petitioner.
6. Further, it is contended that the allegations that the petitioner
has paid money to one of the co-accused or deposited money into the
account of the other co-accused, does not, in any manner, connect the
petitioner with the subject offence and there is no evidence to show
that the petitioner had received any part of the siphoned fund.
7. Further, it is contended that the petitioner had left the services
of the Company in the year 2017 and was thereafter not entrusted with
any money for replenishing.
8. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and on
perusal of the record, I am satisfied that petitioner has made out a case
for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail
bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court, petitioner shall be released on bail,
if not required in any other case. Petitioner shall not do anything
which may prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.
9. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 31, 2019
st
