This bail application was dismissed. The court refused to grant bail to the petitioner, an accused in a cheating and forgery case involving fraudulent e-wallet transactions, despite the petitioner's claim of innocence and lack of transactional evidence.
Prayer for bail was rejected and the application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2614 of 2018
----
Tamim Ansari
… Petitioner
-versus-
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
---CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ---For the Petitioner : Ms. Vani Kumari, Sr. Advocate Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Mohan, A.P.P. ----
8/ 19.12.2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
Petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Sections 414, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 66(B)(C)(D) of the Information Technology Act, in connection with Narayanpur Police Station Case No.09 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.30 of 2018, pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and there is no evidence of any transaction.
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that a mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 911576157265890 was recovered from the possession of this petitioner. By using said mobile phone, e-wallets were created and there is evidence of electronic transfers, which can be said to be fraudulent in nature. The transaction is through AXIS Bank and Central Bank of India, which is evident from paragraphs 58, 60, 61 and 64 to 68 of the Supplementary Case Diary.
Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned A.P.P. for the State, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner, abovenamed, in connection with Narayanpur Police Station Case No.09 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.30 of 2018, pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, is hereby rejected.
This application stands dismissed.
( Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-03
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under Sections 414, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) IPC and Information Technology Act.
Whether the recovery of a mobile phone and evidence of fraudulent e-wallet transactions justifies denial of bail.
Whether the petitioner's claim of innocence is sufficient to grant bail in offences involving cheating and forgery.
Tamim Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
