Single judge order denying bail to petitioner charged under IPC and IT Act for illegal electronic money transactions, citing insufficient evidence and involvement found thin.
Prayer for bail of the petitioner rejected and application 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.4428 of 2018
----
Jubair Ansari
… Petitioner
-versus-
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
----
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Ms. Srishti Paul, Advocate Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ----
8/ 05.12.2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
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, Sections 66(B)(C)(D) of the Information Technology Act, in connection with Karmatanr Police Station Case No.36 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.137 of 2018, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that chargesheet was submitted in this case on 16.04.2018 and at that point of time there was no evidence to implicate this petitioner. Later on police again gathered material, which are allegedly against the petitioner and had shown that the petitioner was involved in illegal transaction and transferring money illegally by electronic mode. He submits that after submission of chargesheet, police could not have investigated the case. He submits that there was no criminal antecedent of the petitioner.
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. By referring to the counter affidavit, he submits that e- wallets were generated using the SIM Cards and through the e-wallets amounts were transferred to the account of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner withdrew the said amount using the ATM Card. He submits that ATM Cards of the victims have also been traced out.
Considering the Counter Affidavit, which suggests that the petitioner is involved in transferring money illegally through electronic modes, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Jubair Ansari, in connection with
-: 2 :-
Karmatanr Police Station Case No.36 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.137 of 2018, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, is hereby rejected.
This application stands dismissed.
( Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-03
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner entitled to bail in a non-bailable offence involving illegal electronic money transfer.
Jubair Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
