Court rejected application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner accused of cyber-crime via impersonation and forged SIMs. Court denied bail citing gravity of offence and criminal background despite lack of recovered evidence against petitioner personally.
Prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail rejected.
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 A.B.A. No.1244 of 2023
------
Sitaram Mandal @ Ram Kumar Mandal
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, S.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 03.03.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 36 of 2022 instituted under Sections 414, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(B),(C),(D) of I.T. Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
It is alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons, impersonated himself as bank officer and by using forged SIM cards and OTP number and mobile handsets, obtained secret information about the ATM password of account holders of the bank and swindled away money through e-wallet from their accounts by using passwords fraudulently and dishonestly resulting in cybercrime.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and he has falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person. No concrete materials have been collected against the petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged offence. Petitioner is a poor person and for his livelihood, he is working as a driver. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned S.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner for committing cyber-crime and he has criminal antecedent of similar offence. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, coupled with materials available on record against the petitioner and in view of the gravity of offence and criminal background of
petitioner of similar offence, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail of petitioners is rejected.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of cyber-crime with criminal antecedents.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sitaram Mandal
State
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
