High Court · 2025

Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.128 of 2025, under Sections 61(2), 317(2), 316(5) B.NS., 2023 and Sections 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR and FIR of the present case was lodged against two named accused Gaurav Tomar and Rocky Malik and as per allegations made in the FIR, they were employees of a company, which was authorized to load cash in the ATM Machine but they did not load the cash in the ATM Machine and they fled with rupees 5.26 crores of the bank.

5. He further submits that after about one month when on

01.04.2025, first statements of named co-accused Gaurav Tomar and Rocky Malik were recorded then they did not disclose the name of the applicant but surprisingly, when on 06.04.2025 i.e. after five days, their second statements during investigation were recorded then they disclosed the name of the applicant by stating that applicant being police constable helped them alongwith other accused.

6. He further submits that except the above allegations, both the named accused did not make any accusation against the applicant.

7. He further submits that however from their statements, it reflect that out of stolen money of rupees 5.26 crores, Rs.2,00,000/- were with the applicant.

8. He further submits that as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then from his possession Rs.2,00,000/- were recovered, which were part of the alleged stolen money of the bank.

9. He further submits that except the statements of the co-accused and recovery of Rs.2,00,000/-, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

10. He further submits that however, investigation of the case with regard to the applicant has been concluded but during the entire investigation, the alleged recovered Rs.2,00,000/- from the possession of the applicant could not be connected with the alleged stolen money of the bank.

11. He further submits that even from the entire case diary, it reflected that the details of the alleged stolen money could not be disclosed by the Investigating Officer during the entire investigation.

12. He further submits that actually alleged recovered Rs.2,00,000/- belonged to the family of the applicant and a specific averment in this regard has been made by the applicant in the instant bail application.

13. He further submits that however, applicant is the police constable but his father is having agency of a reputed firm and the alleged recovered money belonged to him.

14. He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since

08.04.2025 i.e. for last more than four months.

15. Per contra; learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case in which rupees 5.26 crores of the bank has been stolen and during investigation, number of accused persons were made accused and applicant is one of them.

16. He further submits that however, except the statements of the co-accused and recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- there is no other evidence against the applicant on record but considering the gravity of the allegations merely on this ground, applicant should not be released on bail.

17. He further submits that merely by making an averment in the bail application that the alleged recovered money belonged to the family of the applicant, it cannot be presumed that the alleged recovered money belonged to the applicant. He however could not dispute the fact that investigation with regard to the applicant has been concluded and from the entire case diary, it could not be reflected that the alleged recovered money of Rs.2,00,000/- have been connected with the alleged stolen money of the bank.

18. He further could not dispute the fact that from the entire case diary, it also could not be reflected that the details including denomination, etc. of the alleged stolen money has been disclosed by the Investigating Officer in the case diary.

19. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant at the time of arrest was posted as police constable and apart from the present case, he is not having any other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 08.04.2025 i.e. for last more than four months.

20. I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.

21. However, it is a case in which rupees 5.26 crores of the bank has been stolen but applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation, after one month he has been made accused in the present matter through the second statements of named co- accused. It reflects they did not disclose the name of the applicant in their first statements.

22. Therefore, it reflects that on the basis of the statements of the co-accused, applicant has been made accused in the present matter and except the statements of the co-accused, confessional statement of the applicant before the police and recovery of Rs.2,00,000/-, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

23. As far as recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- is concerned. However, as per prosecution this money was part of the stolen money of the bank but from the record, it reflected that the money allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant could be connected with the instant crime during investigation and it appears, except the bald and verbal allegations, there is no other cogent and admissible evidence, which can suggest that actually the money, which were allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant, were part of the stolen money.

24. Further, from the record it also could not be reflected that during investigation, Investigating Officer could even mention the details of the alleged misappropriated money of the bank and in the case diary not even denomination of the currencies could be disclosed.

25. Further, applicant in the instant bail application has made a specific averment that his father is having agency of Amul and alleged recovered Rs.2,00,000/- belonged to him.

26. Further,applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 08.04.2025 i.e. for last more than four months and investigation of the case with regard to him has been concluded.

27. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

28. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

29. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

30. Let the applicant- Ojasvi Malik, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

31. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

32. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.128 of 2025, under Sections 61(2), 317(2), 316(5) B.NS., 2023 and Sections 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR and FIR of the present case was lodged against two named accused Gaurav Tomar and Rocky Malik and as per allegations made in the FIR, they were employees of a company, which was authorized to load cash in the ATM Machine but they did not load the cash in the ATM Machine and they fled with rupees 5.26 crores of the bank.

5. He further submits that after about one month when on

01.04.2025, first statements of named co-accused Gaurav Tomar and Rocky Malik were recorded then they did not disclose the name of the applicant but surprisingly, when on 06.04.2025 i.e. after five days, their second statements during investigation were recorded then they disclosed the name of the applicant by stating that applicant being police constable helped them alongwith other accused.

6. He further submits that except the above allegations, both the named accused did not make any accusation against the applicant.

7. He further submits that however from their statements, it reflect that out of stolen money of rupees 5.26 crores, Rs.2,00,000/- were with the applicant.

8. He further submits that as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then from his possession Rs.2,00,000/- were recovered, which were part of the alleged stolen money of the bank.

9. He further submits that except the statements of the co-accused and recovery of Rs.2,00,000/-, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

10. He further submits that however, investigation of the case with regard to the applicant has been concluded but during the entire investigation, the alleged recovered Rs.2,00,000/- from the possession of the applicant could not be connected with the alleged stolen money of the bank.

11. He further submits that even from the entire case diary, it reflected that the details of the alleged stolen money could not be disclosed by the Investigating Officer during the entire investigation.

12. He further submits that actually alleged recovered Rs.2,00,000/- belonged to the family of the applicant and a specific averment in this regard has been made by the applicant in the instant bail application.

13. He further submits that however, applicant is the police constable but his father is having agency of a reputed firm and the alleged recovered money belonged to him.

14. He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since

08.04.2025 i.e. for last more than four months.

15. Per contra; learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case in which rupees 5.26 crores of the bank has been stolen and during investigation, number of accused persons were made accused and applicant is one of them.

16. He further submits that however, except the statements of the co-accused and recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- there is no other evidence against the applicant on record but considering the gravity of the allegations merely on this ground, applicant should not be released on bail.

17. He further submits that merely by making an averment in the bail application that the alleged recovered money belonged to the family of the applicant, it cannot be presumed that the alleged recovered money belonged to the applicant. He however could not dispute the fact that investigation with regard to the applicant has been concluded and from the entire case diary, it could not be reflected that the alleged recovered money of Rs.2,00,000/- have been connected with the alleged stolen money of the bank.

18. He further could not dispute the fact that from the entire case diary, it also could not be reflected that the details including denomination, etc. of the alleged stolen money has been disclosed by the Investigating Officer in the case diary.

19. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant at the time of arrest was posted as police constable and apart from the present case, he is not having any other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 08.04.2025 i.e. for last more than four months.

20. I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.

21. However, it is a case in which rupees 5.26 crores of the bank has been stolen but applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation, after one month he has been made accused in the present matter through the second statements of named co- accused. It reflects they did not disclose the name of the applicant in their first statements.

22. Therefore, it reflects that on the basis of the statements of the co-accused, applicant has been made accused in the present matter and except the statements of the co-accused, confessional statement of the applicant before the police and recovery of Rs.2,00,000/-, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

23. As far as recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- is concerned. However, as per prosecution this money was part of the stolen money of the bank but from the record, it reflected that the money allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant could be connected with the instant crime during investigation and it appears, except the bald and verbal allegations, there is no other cogent and admissible evidence, which can suggest that actually the money, which were allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant, were part of the stolen money.

24. Further, from the record it also could not be reflected that during investigation, Investigating Officer could even mention the details of the alleged misappropriated money of the bank and in the case diary not even denomination of the currencies could be disclosed.

25. Further, applicant in the instant bail application has made a specific averment that his father is having agency of Amul and alleged recovered Rs.2,00,000/- belonged to him.

26. Further,applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 08.04.2025 i.e. for last more than four months and investigation of the case with regard to him has been concluded.

27. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

28. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

29. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

30. Let the applicant- Ojasvi Malik, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

31. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

32. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad