Allowed

Ranjeet Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Feb 2021B.A./63/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Ranchi granted bail to petitioner Ranjeet Kumar Das in a cyber cheating case involving IPC offences and Income Tax Act provisions, conditioned upon deposit of victim compensation and furnishing bail bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail after depositing Rs. 50,000 as victim compensation and furnishing Rs. 25,000 bail bond with two sureties.

Ranjeet Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 63 of 2021

¶2

Ranjeet Kumar Das … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶3

------

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Addl. P.P. ------

¶6

Order No.02 Dated- 02.02.2021

¶7

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

¶9

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

¶10

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No.54 of 2020 registered under sections 419/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66B/C/D/84C of I.T. Act.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is an infamous cybercriminal and has cheated Anjani Topno, son of Kalyan Topno of Kusdega, P.S. Basia, District Gumla bearing mobile number 6205771280 of Rs.47,000/-. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 10.09.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 11 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to pay Rs. 50,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the victim-Anjani Topno without prejudice to his defence in this case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

¶12

The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

¶13

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on depositing a demand draft of Rs.50,000/- in favour of victimAnjani Topno and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No.54 of 2020 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case.

¶14

In case, the petitioner deposits the said demand draft, the trial court is directed to collect the detailed postal address of the victim and sent the said demand draft through post to him.

¶15

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶16

Sonu-Gunjan/

Ranjeet Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Kumar Das 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Ejaz Ahmad Alias MD Ejaz Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Punit Ishwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunita Verma Alias Sunita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Das Alias Pankaj Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Azad Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand