Allowed

Rahul Tripathi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Jul 2024B.A./2768/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner in a cyber crime FIR under cheating and forgery provisions sought regular bail, claiming he was falsely implicated and had returned the defrauded Rs.4,00,000 to the informant. The court granted bail with conditions including trial attendance and no tampering.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted on bail bond of Rs.25,000 with two like sureties, subject to conditions of trial attendance and non-tampering.

Rahul Tripathi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2768 of 2024

¶2

Rahul Tripathi ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. ---------

¶3

Order No. 06/Dated: 4^th July, 2024

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 105 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the I.P.C. and Sections 66B, 66C, 66D of the I.T. Act., pending in the Court of learned A.J.C.II Cum Special Judge Cyber Crime, Ranchi.

¶6

As per FIR, informant alleged that on 25.10.2023, she received a message regarding job and investment in her mobile and after that, she did some enquiry and started investing from her bank account. Later informant noticed that she has been cheated and on demand, her money was not returned. She transferred Rs.4,00,000/- in the account of the petitioner.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all as alleged in the FIR. He has been falsely implicated in this case, due to Cyber Crime committed by some other miscreants in connection with huge amount about Rs.4,00,000/transferred in the account of the petitioner, but the petitioner after getting the knowledge of the same, informed the Cyber Crime Police Station and has also expressed his desire to withdraw the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/from his account and delivered the same, who is concerned for this. Petitioner is languishing in Judicial Custody since 03.02.2024 without any rhymes and reasons. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is a reputed person of the society. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution. Hence, the petitioner may be

¶8

P a g e 1 | 2

¶9

extended the privilege of bail. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail.

¶10

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that during investigation, it has been revealed that Rs.4,00,000/- has been transferred due to Cyber fraud in the account of the petitioner and he has no criminal background.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner, but she is satisfied that her amount is received back under the aforesaid facts and circumstances.

¶12

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation coupled with the materials available against the petitioner, I am inclined to release the petitioner on regular bail. Accordingly, the petitioner named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C.II Cum Special Judge Cyber Crime, Ranchi in connection with Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 105 of 2023 subject to the conditions:-

¶13

(1) Petitioner 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

In case of violation of the aforesaid conditions, the bail of the petitioner shall be cancelled and shall be taken into custody by the learned Trial Court itself.

¶17

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶18

Simran/

¶19

P a g e 2 | 2

Rahul Tripathi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Tripathi 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

Vikesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ganesh Prasad Alias Ganesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Jawed Akhtar Alias MD Javed Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jai Tarkeshwar Ganjhu Alias Tarkeshwar Ganju Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dev Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Chik Badaik Alias Mukesh Chik Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhand