Deepak Das Alias Deepak Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Deepak Das Alias Deepak Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All four petitioners enlarged 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 the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar, subject to conditions of attendance on every trial date, abstention from similar offences, and no tampering with prosecution evidences or influencing of prosecution witnesses.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, accused in Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case No. 07 of 2024, should be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the materials available on record and the custody period of the petitioners, the Court was inclined to release the above-named petitioners on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners were directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case No. 07 of 2024.

Key takeaways

Bail was made subject to the condition that the petitioners remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial, unless prevented by sufficient cause, to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court.ratio¶13
Bail was made subject to the condition that the petitioners shall not indulge in any or other similar offence till the conclusion of the trial.ratio¶14
Bail was made subject to the condition that the petitioners shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Four bail applications — Nawab Ansari (B.A. No.2930 of 2024), Deepak Das @ Deepak Kumar Das (B.A. No.2733 of 2024), Hajrat Ansari @ Hajrat (B.A. No.2931 of 2024) and Md. Manir Ansari @ Manir Ansari (B.A. No.2963 of 2024) v. The State of Jharkhand — decided together by Order No.06 dated 05.07.2024 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.). All four are accused in Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case No. 07 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the I.P.C. and Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D), 84(C) of the I.T. Act, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar, and were in judicial custody since 06.02.2024. Per the F.I.R., on secret information police apprehended persons talking over mobile phones in village Badamekhi and recovered mobile phones and SIM cards. Considering the facts and circumstances, materials on record and the custody period, the Court enlarged all four petitioners on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount, subject to: (i) physical presence on each and every trial date; (ii) no indulgence in any or other similar offence till the trial concludes; and (iii) no tampering with prosecution evidences or influencing of prosecution witnesses.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No.2930 of 2024

Nawab Ansari … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With B.A. No.2733 of 2024 Deepak Das @ Deepak Kumar Das … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With B.A. No.2931 of 2024 Hajrat Ansari @ Hajrat … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With B.A. No.2963 of 2024 Md. Manir Ansari @ Manir Ansari … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

For the Petitioners : Mr. Pran Pranay, Adv. (In B.A. No. 2930 of 2024, B.A. No. 2931 of 2024 & B.A. No.2963 of 2024) : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Adv (In B.A. No. 2733 of 2024) For the State : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, A.P.P. (In B.A. No.2963 of 2024, B.A. No.2733 of 2024) : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Adv. (In B.A. No.2930 of 2024) : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Adv. (In B.A. No.2931 of 2024)

Order No.06/Dated- 05.07.2024

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case No. 07 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the I.P.C. & under Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D), 84(C) of the I.T. Act which is now pending in the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar.

As per F.I.R., the informant received a secret information that in village Badamekhi three persons were talking over mobile phone and after seeing police personnels tried to flee away, but were apprehended and from their possession some mobile phones along SIM cards were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent and no details of cybercrime commission by alleged petitioners have been recovered during investigation. Petitioners are in judicial custody since 06.02.2024. Petitioners undertake to co-operate with the trial of the case and to 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. Hence the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, materials available on record and also in view of fact custody period of the petitioners, I am inclined to release the above-named petitioners, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Learned Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case No. 07 of 2024 subject to the conditions:

(1). Petitioners shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court.

(2). Petitioners shall not indulge in any or other similar offence till the conclusion of the trial.

(3). Petitioners shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Amar/-