Allowed¶17

Tinku Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Sept 2024B.A./6301/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; B.A. No. 6301 of 2024; Justice Navneet Kumar; order dated 04.09.2024; regular bail in cyber fraud/cheating and forgery case; Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024; Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC; Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D), 84(C) IT Act; recovery of mobile phone and seven debit cards; ATM withdrawals; no victim examined; custody since 20.05.2024; charge-sheet filed; bail bond Rs. 25,000 with two sureties; conditions of trial attendance and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted: petitioner to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to conditions of cooperation in the trial and presence on every date, failing which bail may be cancelled by the court below. ¶17

Tinku Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an accused in Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024, deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Court's answer

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge-II-cumSpecial Judge, Cyber Crime, Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Bail is subject to the conditions that the petitioner cooperates in the pending criminal proceeding and remains present on each and every date of the criminal trial as and when required, failing which the learned court below shall pass appropriate order for cancellation of bail as per the provision of law.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Cyber crime case (Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024, dated 19.05.2024) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC read with Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) & 84(C) of the Information Technology Act — allegation of cyber fraud with co-accused; one mobile phone and seven debit cards allegedly recovered from the petitioner; prosecution claim that money was withdrawn from ATMs using the debit cards — defence plea that no victim came forward during investigation, petitioner in custody since 20.05.2024, charge-sheet filed, no criminal history — High Court of Jharkhand (Navneet Kumar, J.) enlarged the petitioner on bail on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two like sureties to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge-II-cumSpecial Judge, Cyber Crime, Deoghar, subject to conditions of cooperation in the trial and appearance on every date, failing which cancellation of bail as per law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6301 of 2024

¶2

Tinku Kumar Das

¶3

... … Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.

¶9

¶10

Order No. 03 / Dated 04^th September, 2024

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

¶12

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024 dated 19.05.2024, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) & 84(C) of the Information Technology Act, pending in the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cumSpecial Judge, Cyber Crime, Deoghar.

¶13

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per the prosecution story, the petitioner is alleged to have involved in the commission of the cybercrime along with the co-accused persons and when the raid was conducted, one mobile phone and seven debit cards have been recovered from his possession. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations as made out in the F.I.R. are not supported in view of the fact that no victim has come forward during the course of the investigation to support that he was cheated and his money was withdrawn by the ATM card. Further, it has been pointed out that petitioner is in jail since 20.05.2024. Charge-sheet in this case has been submitted and this petitioner has no criminal history as stated in para 16 of the present bail application and therefore, possibility of tampering the evidence is very remote and thus he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and

¶15

submitted that several debit cards have been recovered from his possession and it has also come into evidence that he used to withdraw the money from the ATM by using the debit cards and therefore he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail .

¶16

Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case.

¶17

In light of the forceful submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and under the facts and circumstances of this case, this petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cumSpecial Judge, Cyber Crime, Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024, subject to the condition that the petitioner will cooperate in the criminal proceeding pending in the learned Trial Court and he will remain present on each and every date of the criminal trial as and when required, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned Court below for the cancellation of the bail as per the provision of law.

¶18

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶19

Basant/S. Das

¶20

2 B.A. No.6301 of 2024

Tinku Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinku Kumar Das 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

Ravi Shankar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laddu Singh Alias Saba Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Banti Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rinal Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suchit Das Alias Bachu Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandra Lakshi Rai Alias C Lachi Rai Alias Chandra Lachi Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand