IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.12687 OF 2009 RAHUL KUMAR, SON OF SHRI RABINDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF 2A SHIVAM APARTMENT, ANANDPURI NEAR HIMGIRI CHOWK WEST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA, P.S. SRI KRISHNAPURI, DISTRICT PATNA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 7. 27.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The case is under sections 420, 406, 407, 408 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. On the report that the entire money from an ATM Unit of ICICI Bank situated at Keshav Palace, Patna had been taken out by someone, first information report was instituted. This petitioner was an employee of Brinks Arya India (Private) Limited, a private firm which was entrusted with the work of loading cash in the ATM of the Bank in the town. As per assignment of duty by the firm, petitioner was responsible for filling up cash in the ATM Unit in question. It has come during the investigation that, on the next date the Guard informed that two people had come previous night posing themselves as employees of the firm and claimed that they had come to repair ATM machine. Hence - 2 - they were allowed by him to open the ATM machine. However, later on, when petitioner came to check up the concerned ATM Unit he detected that ATM machine had been open and cash had been taken out. He immediately reported the matter to the higher officers of the firm, who, in turn, reported the matter to the bank officials. Since petitioner was entrusted with the duty of loading of cash in the concerned ATM and it was found that ATM machine was opened with the code/password, natural suspicion arose against the petitioner and he was taken into custody. Case diary was called for. From the case diary, leaned counsel for the petitioner has read out statement of the Manager of the said private firm recorded in the case diary in paragraph 7 in which manager has accepted that due to system failure, codes/ passwords of the concerned ATM as well as other ATM units were known to all the custodians of the firm who were entrusted with the work of loading cash in the different ATMs of the town. From the statements of the manager of the firm it is clear that code/ password of the particular ATM - 3 - was not in the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner but was also known to other custodians of the ATMs. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that supervising officer has issued certain directions to the investigating Officer to investigate the matter from different angles which is contained in paragraph 50 of the case diary. Petitioner is in custody since 25.12.2008. Considering the above facts and circumstances, and particularly the statement of the manager of the private firm made before the police at paragraph 7 of the case diary, the application is allowed. Let petitioner (Rahul Kumar) be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 465/08, corresponding to G. R. 6473/2008 with conditions as laid down in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as may be applicable and also that one of the - 4 - bailors shall be a close relation of the petitioner. In case of breach of any of the conditions at any stage to the satisfaction of the concerned court below, it shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner and take steps for his arrest. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)