Dismissed

Siraj Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Aug 2022A.B.A./3542/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a case involving cyber fraud and cheating. The Court observed prima facie involvement and noted the petitioner's criminal antecedents, holding custodial interrogation necessary for investigation.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected; the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks.

Siraj Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No.3542 of 2022

¶3

------

¶4

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶5

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Spl.P.P ------

¶6

Order No.04 Dated- 18.08.2022

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No. 129 of 2021 instituted under Sections 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(C) and 66(D) of I.T. Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per FIR, the allegation is that, the informant’s mother called through Just dial, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi for information regarding Covaxin but the said number appears to be illegal. Thereafter, a call was received from Mob. No.8389994661, who identified himself as Rajesh Kumar and requested to deposit registration fee Rs.5/- through Paytm. It is further alleged that a link was forwarded to informant’s mother in the said link she put her account number, name, expiry date, CVV Number and asked to forward this information to Mob. No.9717465555. It is further alleged that she was asked to download Anytime App and meanwhile, Rs.4,999 was debited and after sometime, she received an OTP for withdrawal of Rs.49,999/- thereafter, she uninstalled the said App and reported in the Cyber Crime Branch. It is further alleged that total Rs.99,998/- has been withdrawn from the account of informant’s mother.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all as alleged in F.I.R. It is further submitted that the mobile number mentioned in the FIR does not belong to the petitioner and was never used by him. No money has been transferred in the account of petitioner from the account of victim. In case of his arrest at the hands of police, petitioner shall sustain irreparable loss. It is further submitted that petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and will not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting

¶11

anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that in course of investigation, on the basis of Mobile Call Details and use of SIM card showing the involvement of present petitioner came into light in the alleged offence. As per Para 40, serial 6 of case diary, it is found that Mob. No.8389994661 was used in mobile phone of IMEI No.86579604376759 by one Swapan Haldar W/o Ranjan Halder, Add.Chowdhurichak Bhatia, Dholahat, Bhagabanpur Mathurapur-1, South 24 Parganas(WB) but the said Vivo Company mobile and SIM Card having Mob. No. 605484846 issued in the name of petitioner, the maximum tower location of the said mobile was shown near Khori Mahua Gande, Giridih, Koromahua-01, Jharkhand. It is further submitted that petitioner has criminal antecedent of similar type of offence, hence, the custodial interrogation of petitioner is required for further investigation. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record showing prima-facie involvement of petitioner in the alleged offence as per materials collected during the investigation and criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

¶14

Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from the date of this order.

¶15

In case, petitioner surrender before the Ld. trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, learned court below shall consider the prayer for regular bail of petitioner without being prejudiced by this order.

¶16

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶17

Pappu/

Siraj Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siraj Ansari 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

Sonu Yadav Alias Ajgar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saptamjeet Bagti Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mangaram Swarnkar Alias Magaram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birbal Kuma Gupta Alias Birbal Kumar Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohan Kumar Kewat Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Yasar Alias Mohammad Yasar Vs the State of Jharkhand