Allowed

Abutalib v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Oct 2023B.A./3941/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner accused of offences under IPC and IT Act sought bail alleging false implication, planted evidence, and granting of bail to co-accused. Court allowed bail with sureties and conditions regarding court attendance and police reporting for one year.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and complying with conditions of attendance and police reporting.

Abutalib Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

¶2

BA No. 3941 of 2023

¶3

Abutalib ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶4

¶5

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶6

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. S. K. Tiwari, APP

¶7

¶8

Order No.06/Dated: 16th October, 2023

¶9

When the matter is called out, the learned counsels for the parties have

¶10

appeared.

¶11

The petitioner is an accused for the offence under sections 419/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/120-B IPC and under sections 66(B),66(C), 66(D) and 84 (C) of the IT Act.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that it is alleged that two mobile sets along with sim cards were recovered from the possession of the petitioner but the fact is that single set of mobile phone has been recovered and one of the mobile phone with sim card is planted. He further states that recovered mobile phone has never been used for committing cyber offence and without any iota of evidence against him, he has been dragged in this case. He further submits that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 23.3.2023. He further submits that three of the co-accused, namely, Mustakim Ansari, Mahbub Ansari and Miraj Ansari have been granted bail by this court vide orders dated 21.9.2023, and 29.9.2023. Therefore, the petitioner may also be released on bail.

¶13

The learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but has not denied the cited bail orders.

¶14

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner, named above, on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar Cyber PS Case No. 17 of 2023, subject to the conditions that (i) the petitioner shall attend each and every date of trial unless it is dispensed with by the learned court below, (ii) the petitioner shall submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhar Card and mobile number before the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of the case without prior permission of the Court and, (iii) the petitioner shall report to the concerned police station on last Saturday of every month between 1:00 pm and 5:00 pm in the next twelve months, failing which his bail bonds shall be cancelled. Any exception to such attendance shall be done so after direction from the learned court below.

¶15

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶16

KNR

Abutalib v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abutalib 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithun Rai Alias Mithun Kumar Alias Mithun Vs Union of India through Ncb

Sri Ram Kumar Alias Sri Ram Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintu Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sonu Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panda Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand