Allowed

MD Mustak Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Jun 2024B.A./2603/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Six accused in a cyber-crime case under IPC and IT Act sections sought bail. The court, considering the nature of allegations, materials on record and period of custody, granted regular bail to all petitioners with conditions of physical trial attendance and non-tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.20,000 each with two sureties to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar, with attendance and non-tampering condi

MD Mustak Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.1990 of 2024

¶2

Shambhu Kumar Mandal @ Shambhu Kr. Mandal

¶3

… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With B.A. No.2003 of 2024 Chandan Kumar Das … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With B.A. No.2075 of 2024 Dayanand Das … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With B.A. No.2393 of 2024 Sokat Ansari Shokat Ansari … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With B.A. No.2394 of 2024 Nasar Ansari … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With B.A. No.2603 of 2024 Md. Mustak Ansari … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate [B.A. No.1990/2024] Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate [B.A. No.2003/2075 of 2024] Mr. Subrat Kishore Singh, Advocate [B.A. No.2393/2394 of 2024] Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate [B.A. No.2603/2024] For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P. [B.A. No.1990/2003 of 2024] Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, A.P.P. [B.A. No.2075/2024] Mr. Shialendra Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P. [B.A. No.2393 of 2024]

¶4

Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. [B.A. No. 2394 of 2024] Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. [B.A. No. 2603 of 2024]

¶5

Order No.03 Dated- 11.06.2024

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 96 of 2023 registered under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) & 84(C) of I.T. Act.

¶8

All these bail applications arising out of same FIR have been heard together.

¶9

As per FIR, allegation is that the informant received secret information that petitioners along with others were engaged in commission of cyber-crime and a raid was conducted and all the accused were apprehended. From their possession, several mobiles phones with SIM Cards were recovered.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that no incriminating articles have been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. Petitioners are neither involved in cyber-crime nor they have any association with the cyber criminals. Co-accused with similar allegation has already been granted regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.05.2024 passed in B.A. No.2125 of 2024. Petitioners undertake to co-operate with the trial of the case and remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial and shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or gain over them. The petitioners are languishing in judicial custody without any rhymes and reasons. Hence the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned Addl. P.Ps. have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioners coupled with materials available on record and period of custody of the petitioner, I am inclined to release the above named petitioners, on bail. Accordingly,

¶13

the petitioners named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 96 of 2023 with condition that petitioners shall appear physically on each and every date during the trial of case till its conclusion unless their physical appearances are dispensed with for sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and with further condition that petitioners shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or gain over them.

¶14

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶15

Pappu/

MD Mustak Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Mustak 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

Ajit Hembrom Alias Ajeet Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Sharik Alias MD Sharique Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lallu Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vivekanand Sadhu Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shambhu Kumar Mandal Alias Shambhu Kr Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahesh Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand