Manirul Islam Vs State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3589 of 2024

¶2

Kanchan Ghosh 2. Bishwajeet Kumar Sah 3. Rajesh Kumar Sah ... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 3648 of 2024 1. Nunjay Yadav 2. Dulal Sah 3. Sanbir Alam 4. Makul Chandra Saha ... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 3696 of 2024 Lal Bahadur Singh @ Arjun ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party With

¶3

A.B.A. No. 3720 of 2024

¶4

Motahar Hussain

¶5

Wasip Shekh

¶6

Aahiruddin Alam @ Ashiruddin Alam

¶7

Beharul Haque 5. Sagar Rajak 6. Sowkat Ali 7. Mahfuz Alam 8. Kausar Alam 9. Anwar Hussain ... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 4844 of 2024 Manirul Islam ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Neha Agarwal, Advocate [In ABA Nos.3589,3648,3720/2024] Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate [In ABA No. 3696/2024] Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate [In ABA No. 4844/2024] For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.

¶8

Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, A.P.P -----

¶9

04/27.08.2024 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 420/379/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶10

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per the self-statement of the informant (the Officer-in-Charge of Kotalpokhar, P.S.), he got an information on 18.02.2024 at about 21.00 hours (9.00 p.m.) that video/audio clippings relating to the activities of Kotalpokhar police were going viral. It came to light after watching and listening the same that some anti-social elements residing within the area of Kotalpokhar Police Station under Sahibganj district and Hiranpur Police Station under Pakur district were indulged in sharing the activities of officials of the police/administration as well as of media persons with respect to the illegal mining/transportation among the members of WhatsApp group named Kotalpokhar. Learned counsel for the petitioners jointly submit that the entire allegation made in the self-statement of the informant is incorrect. Though the informant has mentioned about the said WhatsApp group in which the petitioners are said to be the members, yet the seizure list prepared by the informant does not indicate that the mobile phone of any of the petitioners has been seized. In fact, the informant has lodged the present F.I.R

¶11

2 A.B.A. Nos. 3598, 3648, 3696, 3720 & 4844 of 2024

¶12

merely on the basis of video/audio clippings recorded in the pen drive and messages circulated within the members of said WhatsApp group. Even otherwise, being the members of the WhatsApp group itself does not make out any offence unless corroborated by other admissible evidence(s) as against any of the petitioners suggesting their involvement either in any illegal mining or abetting the persons involved in illegal mining. The petitioners, however, undertake to co-operate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶13

3. Learned A.P.P oppose the petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶14

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest/surrender within three weeks from today, shall 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal, Sahibganj, in connection with Kotalpokhar P.S. Case No. 10/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶15

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶16

Manish

¶17

¶18

A.B.A. Nos. 3598, 3648, 3696, 3720 & 4844 of 2024

Manirul Islam v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manirul Islam v. 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

MD Asif Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Anjaneya Ispat Ltd. through Its Directors Ajit Singh and Ors. Vs Bank of Baroda through Its Authorized Officer

Ms Geeta Weigh Bridge through Its Partner Sri Ashish Agarwal Vs State of Jharkhand

Rabi Lal Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandan Das Vs State of Jharkhand