- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The learned A. G. A. opposed the prayer for bail vehemently indicating how an under-trial prisoner had been unlawfully using a cel lular phone and that too in the name a fake person.
(2.) PERUSED the order of the Court below in which it has been indicated that several cases were pending against the present applicant and several calls were made by the applicant through the cellular phone while in Jail. It was submitted by the learned A. G. A. that the case is a sensitive one. A case becomes sensitive, in my view, for the law point involved in it and not for involved in the case. The al legations are that the applicant Mukhtar Ansari, while in jail, had been using a cellular phone which was in the name of a fake person and an undertrial had no right to use any phone, far less a cellular phone. The offences alleged are of cheating, abet ment of the same and of conspiracy. Abetment is punishable under Sec tion 109, I. P. C. when the act abetted is committed in consequence of such abet ment. This suggests that there must be a basic substantive offence which had been abetted and is committed consequence to such abetment. The basic offence as al leged here is of hearing. For an offence of conspiracy also a criminal conspiracy is punishable under Section 120-B of the I. P. C. when a person is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence. Here also the conspiracy must relate to commis sion of an offence. According to the F. I. R. the conspiracy is of cheating. When we come to the question of cheating, we must refer to Section 415 of the I. P. C. which reads as follows: "415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation.-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. " It appears that there must be decep tion played on a person and fraudulent or dishonest inducement is to be thereupon such deception so that the person so deceived may deliver any property to anybody or to consent that any person shall retain any property or there is to be intentional inducement to the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything. A further necessity for an offence of cheating is that the doing or omitting to do the act was likely to cause damage or harm in the person in body, mind, reputation or property. The F. I. R. is not clear as to who is the person cheated. It could not be placed before me if the cellular phone company had suffered any damage or harm or if at all any loss of revenue. had been caused to the State.
(3.) THERE is a submission on behalf of the applicant that he was ordered to be released on bail in another case and the present case was initiated after he was directed to be released in "that earlier case. This aspect is not of much consequence as the F. I. R. is silent as to who is the person deceived and as to what damage had been caused to him. While considering a bail application a court of law is to be guided by the allegations and interpretation of law and not on the personality of the person detained famous or notorious. Under these circumstances, the prayer for bail stands allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail in case Crime No. 60 of 1999, under Sections 419, 420, 109, 120-B, I. P. C. , police station Jag-dishpur, district Agra, on such terms and conditions as the C. J. M. , Agra, may deem fit and in putting the conditions the past conduct of the applicant may be relevant. Bail granted. .;