Allowed¶15

Mantu Majee v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Jul 2024A.B.A./3852/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail allowed (A.B.A. No.3852 of 2024, HC Jharkhand/Ranchi, Justice Rajesh Shankar, 22.07.2024) to Mantu Majee apprehending arrest in Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.63 of 2022 (Ss.419, 420 IPC; S.66(D) IT Act) over alleged PhonePe fraud transfer of Rs. 99,999/- from informant's account; release conditional on arrest/surrender within three weeks, bail bond Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of like amount, satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-1 Jamtara, and Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: petitioner to face arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks and be released on bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jamtara, subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions. ¶15

Mantu Majee Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether Mantu Majee, apprehending arrest in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.63 of 2022 (Sections 419, 420 IPC; Section 66(D) Information Technology Act) over the alleged fraudulent transfer of Rs. 99,999/- from the informant's bank account using PhonePe, should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶12

Court's answer

This court found the petitioner entitled to anticipatory bail and ordered him enlarged: in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks, he shall be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jamtara, in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.63 of 2022, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

A.B.A. No.3852 of 2024 | High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi | Rajesh Shankar, J. | Order No.04 dated 22.07.2024 — Anticipatory bail GRANTED to petitioner Mantu Majee apprehending arrest in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.63 of 2022, registered under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, arising out of an alleged fraudulent transfer of Rs. 99,999/- from the informant's bank account using PhonePe (App). Counsel argued false implication, that the money had not reached the petitioner's or his family's accounts, that the allegation rested on mere suspicion, and undertook cooperation in the ongoing investigation; the learned A.P.P. opposed. Court enlarged the petitioner: arrest/surrender before the court below within three weeks; bail bond Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jamtara; subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3852 of 2024

¶2

¶3

Mantu Majee

¶4

.......... Petitioner.

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

.......... Opp. Party.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. ----- Order No.04 Date: 22.07.2024

¶12

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.63 of 2022 registered under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per the allegation, the petitioner by playing fraud has transferred Rs. 99,999/- from the bank account of the informant using PhonePe (App). Even on perusal of the content of the written report, it would be evident that the said amount has not been transferred by the petitioner to his bank account or the bank account of his family members. In fact, the entire allegation against the petitioner is based merely on suspicion. The petitioner also undertakes to co-operate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, he may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioner’s prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks from today, shall 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 Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jamtara in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.63 of 2022 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶16

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶17

Vikas/Arpit

¶18

-2-

Mantu Majee v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantu Majee v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Naresh Kumar Ambastha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Ayub Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Kuamr Goswami Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karu Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahdev Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Upendra Singh Alias Upendra Singh Gautam Vs the State of Jharkhand