Allowed

Roshan Raj v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Aug 2022A.B.A./3936/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a computer operator, approached the High Court of Jharkhand seeking anticipatory bail for apprehended arrest in a case alleging tampering with ration card beneficiary data using Aadhar and IT Act sections. The court extended anticipatory bail subject to surrender within four weeks, furnishing a bond and sureties, and adhering to investigation cooperation conditions.

What did the court decide?

Extent of anticipatory bail granted, direction to surrender within four weeks, and obligation to furnish bail bond with sureties and cooperate with investigation.

Roshan Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3936 of 2022

¶2

------ Roshan Raj .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party

¶3

------

¶4

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶5

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl.P.P

¶6

------

¶7

Order No.09 Dated- 16.08.2022

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 49 of 2022 instituted under Sections 468, 471, 406, 419, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 90 of the Data Protection Act & Section 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Aadhar Act and Sections 66-B, 66-C and 66-D of I.T. Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶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 petitioner being computer operator in Jharkhand State Food Co-operation Godown, Daltonganj, is only concerned with entry of supply and distribution of ration to beneficiaries and he is also not concerned with making Ration Cards for dealing with any beneficiaries. It is further submitted that petitioner was working on the instruction of District Supply Officer using DSO’s Login, ID and password generated by DSO itself and OTP also comes and received through DSO’s mobile number. It is further submitted that petitioner can do nothing without instruction of DSO and enquiry was conducted against petitioner and other co-accused persons in respect of tampering with Ration Cards but the involvement of petitioner was not found. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. In case of his arrest at the hands of police, prestige and reputation of the petitioner shall be ruined. 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 anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged offence. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

It appears that the FIR was instituted on the basis of allegations made by one Abdul Kamruddin Khalifa against the petitioner for changing Aadhar number, mobile numbers and photo-graphs of two beneficiaries in another block and later on the said data has been rectified but not by the present petitioner. In course of joint enquiry conducted by DSO, SDM, UID and Additional Collector, Latehar on the direction of Deputy Collector, Latehar, it was found that Ration Cards of several card holders were tampered rather some addition alteration was made in the record at the instance of Ashish Kumar Sinha in connivance with one Sandeep Sanand. It is further alleged that the present petitioner and two others namely Ashish Kumar Sinha and Sandeep Sanand being computer operators were misusing DSO’s login and obtaining OTP in their official capacity and in that way they have received huge amount from beneficiaries and several transactions were found in their account number. Petitioner has A/c No.073701506071 of ICICI Bank, Daltonganj, there was outstanding balance of Rs.10,301.80/- (ten thousand three hundred one and eighty paise).

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Latehar in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 49 of 2022 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶14

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶15

Pappu/

Roshan Raj v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Raj 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

Rahul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Bahadur Alias Golu Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Virendra Pratap Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Antu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramdev Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjeet Sagar Alias Sanjit Sagar Vs the State of Jharkhand