Dismissed

Chandan Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Mar 2022B.A./1623/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected the petitioners' bail application in a cyber cheating case, dismissing reasoning of lack of incriminating materials and directing the trial court to conclude the trial within one year. The application was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Bayer application dismissed as withdrawn; trial directed to be completed within one year.

Chandan Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION)

¶2

B.A. No. 1623 of 2022

¶3

1.Chandan Kumar Das 2.Pradip Kumar Das 3.Kuldip Kumar Das 4.Umesh Mahra 5.Vikash Kumar @ Vikas Das …… Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)

¶7

----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. P.P. -----

¶8

03/Dated: 04/03/2022:

¶9

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Gopal Sharma and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. P.P.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo has submitted that petitioners have prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 37 of 2020 , Cyber Crime Case No.159 of 2020, for the offence registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B/34 IPC & Sections 66(B)/66(C)/66(D)84(C) of Information Technology Act.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that earlier prayer for bail of these petitioners was rejected by this Court in terms of order dated 13.10.2020. Thereafter out of 19 witnesses named in the chargesheet, 10 have already been examined and 9 witnesses are yet to be examined.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that Annexure5 (series) are the depositions of prosecution witnesses, who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Learned counsel has placed paras 13 to 23 of P.W.-1, Rupesh Kumar, (who being the police officer is the informant of the case) and has tried to impress upon the Court that nothing has been collected during the investigation by the police officer, as such, petitioners may be enlarged on bail as they are languishing in custody since 18.06.2020 without any material.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that other prosecution witnesses, who have been examined are seizure witnesses and

¶14

-2-

¶15

they have deposed that they are not knowing, that what are the articles seized by the police, as such, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. P.P. has submitted that material, which has been collected during investigation by these police officers have been deposed during their examination-in-chief, which has not been controverted during cross-examination by the witnesses. The police officer has rightly said that they cannot remember but nothing has been elucidated during cross-examination by the defence to discard the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses in their examination-in-chief.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. P.P. has submitted that it is duty of the trial court to appreciate the evidence during the trial. The High Court while considering the bail may not enter into the shoes of the trial court giving a finding before the actual finding is given by the learned trial court, as such, this Court may not consider those things which are to be considered by learned trial court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. P.P. has further submitted that petitioners are in custody since 18.06.2020, but at the time when the country is passing through Covid-19. He has further submitted that charge has already been framed on 18.06.2021 and it was endeavor of the prosecution that out of 19 witnesses, 10 have already been examined and 9 witnesses are left to be examined, as such, learned trial court may be directed to expedite the trial so as to conclude the trial within a period of one year from today.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. P.P. has further submitted that while rejecting the prayer for bail of these petitioners on 13.10.2020 in analogous matters, this Court has considered the submission of learned counsel for the State in para 15 of the order dated 13.10.2020, that several persons have alleged that they have been called by these petitioners from the mobile and after disclosing their OTP details, they have been cheated by these petitioners and said mobile phones were recovered from the possession of the aforesaid petitioners respectively, as such, this Court may not grant bail to such cyber criminals for which the State of Jharkhand particularly District Jamtara and Deoghar are on the national news.

¶20

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and circumstances, it appears that charge has been framed on 18.06.2021 and out of 19 witnesses, 10 have already been examined and 9 witnesses are left to be

¶21

-3-

¶22

examined. It appears from the earlier order passed by this Court on 13.10.2020 that during investigation several incriminating articles have been recovered, as such, this Court is not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail of these petitioners, which is hereby rejected.

¶23

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of production of copy of this order.

¶24

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Gopal Sharma seeks permission to withdraw the bail application.

¶25

Considering the same, the application is dismissed as withdrawn, but reasoned order as mentioned above shall remain part of this order.

¶26

The Director, Prosecution is directed to ensure that the trial must be completed within a period of one year.

¶27

The Superintendent of Police, Deoghar is directed to produce all the witnesses before the learned trial court.

¶28

Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the Director Prosecution, the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar as well as trial court at once.

¶29

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶30

R.S.

Chandan Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan 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

Sports Authority of India And an Vs Union of India And Ors.

Bablu Kumar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Ujjwal Rabidas Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Food

Ms Sri Ram Stones and Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Roshan Kumar Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Cum Commissioner Department of Water Resources

Satsang through Kartik Chandra Sarkar Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board

Mukesh Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand