A complaint was filed by Sri. Krishna Subbayya Naik stating that he and his wife were holding an account in the State Bank of India and on 17.12.2019, the complainant had gone to withdraw cash from an ATM and since he was unable to withdraw cash from the ATM, he requested an unknown person standing near him to help him out. The said unknown person helped the complainant In withdrawing the amount. Later, on 19.12.2019, in the morning hours, the complainant started receiving messages on his mobile phone regarding withdrawal, and later on inquiry with the bank, it was learned by the complainant that a sum of Rs.40,000/- had been withdrawn from his account. Hence, the said complaint is filed on 19.12.2019 and it came to be registered in Yellapur Police Station in Crime for the offense under Section 420 of IPC.
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the accused- petitioner is innocent and he has been implicated only based on his voluntary statement. There are no materials to connect the present petitioner with the alleged theft of the ATM card of the complainant and withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.20,000/- two times). It was further contended that the petitioner has been granted bail in other cases registered against him. As the charge sheet has been filed, he is not required for any custodial interrogation.
Learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the offenses alleged against the petitioner are a serious offense and one of the offenses under Section 413 of IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment for life. He further contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in three other cases for a similar offense, if the petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper with the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
It was held that the petitioner has been implicated only based on his voluntary statement. The ATM card of the complainant has not been recovered from the petitioner. Merely because there are three other cases registered against the petitioner for a similar offense is not a ground to refuse bail, when there is no strong prima facie case against the petitioner. The investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed and therefore the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation.