HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.227 of 2024
Ankit Yadav ….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Ankit Yadav is in judicial custody in
FIR/Case Crime No. 700 of 2023, under Sections 420, 409.
411, 120B IPC, Police Station Patelnagar, District Dehradun.
He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. According to the FIR, the applicant alongwith the
co-accused have stolen money from the ATMs on various
dates and it was done from recycler machines. They were
captured in the CCTV.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit
that the applicant was not any public servant. He was not
entrusted with any money. In the CCTV, he is not seen doing
anything actively to take out money from any recycler. He
has been implicated merely based on the statement of the
2
co-accused. Even the CCTV footage, it is argued has not
been sent for forensic examination so as to ascertain as to
whether it is genuine or doctored. Learned counsel would
submit that the currency notes which were allegedly
recovered from the applicant has not been sent to the bank
to ascertain whether they were taken from the same ATM as
alleged by the prosecution.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that, in fact,
there were some persons deputed to put money in the ATMs.
They had certain passwords. The applicant had also worked
at some time as custodian of those ATMs. He was also
entrusted with the duty of keeping money in those ATMs. He
along with those custodian, with the help of using its
passwords, took huge money from those ATMs; they have
been captured in the CCTV footages. CCTV footages have
been enclosed with the objection. It is argued that Rs.2 Lakh
were also recovered from the applicant.
6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not
expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat
that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing
at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other
proceedings.
7. It is a very serious offence. It is draining the
public exchequer by deceitful means. What is alleged against
3
the applicant is that he with the help of the custodian of the
ATMs, took money from the recycler machines of the ATMs.
Total Rs.49,88,400/- were taken from the ATMs. The
applicant has been seen in the CCTV footages and the
photographs have been filed by the State. It is also alleged
that some money was recovered from the possession of the
applicant.
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
9. The bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
22.03.2024
Jitendra