Single judge order denying bail to a petitioner accused of cyber crimes due to the existence of criminal antecedents.
Bail application rejected; petitioner remains in custody due to antecedents.
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. 5009 of 2020
Santosh Mandal ... … Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party ---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY Through- Video Conferencing
For the Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P.
03/03.10.2020 Heard Ms. Rajni Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 10 of 2020.
The petitioner and other accused persons were apprehended and Mobiles, ATM Cards etc., were recovered. He was suspected to be involved in cyber crime.
It appears that the petitioner has got a criminal antecedent being an accused in Doranda P.S. Case No. 109 of 2020.
Mr. Tiwari, learned Spl. P.P. has stated that the petitioner is also an accused in connection with Taratanr P.S. Case No. 52/2017 which also was related to cyber crime.
In view of the antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. This application stands rejected.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Alok/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner, who is an accused with criminal antecedents in pending cyber crime cases.
Santosh Mandal
State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
