Dismissed

Mubarak Ansari And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 May 2018B.A./183/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand, at Ranchi, considered a bail application filed by Mubarak and Musharaf Ansari, accused of cyber fraud via section 414 and related provisions of IPC and IT Act. The judge rejected the bail prayer based on Call Details Reports indicating fraudulent electronic money transfers and phishing calls.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for bail is hereby rejected; the application is dismissed.

Mubarak Ansari And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 183 of 2018

¶2

----

¶3

Mubarak Ansari

¶4

Musharaf Ansari

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

---CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶7

---For the Petitioners: Mr . P.C. Roy, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

¶8

----

¶9

7/ 03.05.2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

Petitioners are accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Sections 414, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(B)(C)(D) of the Information Technology Act, in connection with Narayanpur Police Station Case No.200 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 1049 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara.

¶11

There is allegation that the petitioners by fraudulent means were transferring money electronically from accounts of several persons. There is allegation that the petitioners were making phishing calls by using several SIM Cards through single mobile phone.

¶12

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that the Call Details Report clearly suggests the activities of the petitioners to the effect that the petitioner No.1 was using a particular phone having IMEI No. 352458070771310 and so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he was using a phone having IMEI No. 351801088327340 and used several SIM Cards of different numbers. He further submits that the Case Diary, in paragraph 38 also suggests that there were monetary transactions through Idea Money, Amazon, e-wallet.

¶13

The aforesaid facts suggest that the petitioners were involved in transferring money electronically by fraudulent means. In that view, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners, namely, Mubarak Ansari and Musharaf Ansari, in connection with Narayanpur Police Station Case No.200 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1049 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, is hereby rejected.

¶14

This application stands dismissed.

¶15

( Ananda Sen, J.)

¶16

Kumar/Cp-03

Mubarak Ansari And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubarak Ansari And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md Abu Sale Alias Md Abu Saleh Alias Sameer Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Smt Pinki Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mano Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Mandal Alias Shashi Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Yadav And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand