Chotelal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

[ 2025:JHHC:16106 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.2622 of 2025

------

Koshar Ansari, aged about 26 years, son of Garibullah Ansari @ Garibullah Miyan, resident of Village- Sarath (O.P- Patharada), P.O. & P.S.- Sarath, District Deoghar. .... .... …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

With

¶7

B.A. No.1886 of 2025

¶8

------

¶9

Chotelal Yadav, aged about 22 years, S/O- Deep Narayan Yadav, R/O Village- Baghmari, Kitakharwa, P.O+P.S.- Mohanpur, DistrictDeoghar. .... .... …. Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party With

¶12

B.A. No.2052 of 2025

¶13

------

¶14

Gopal Kumar S/o Chandrika Yadav aged about 21 years Resident of Village- Baghmari, P.O. & P.S. Mohanpur, Dist Deoghar

¶15

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party With

¶18

B.A. No.2053 of 2025

¶19

------

¶20

Bhagat Kumar @ Bhagat Kumar Ray @ Bhagat Ray S/o Budhan Ray aged about 18 years Resident of Village- Baghmari Kitakharwa, P.O. & P.S. Mohanpur, Dist Deoghar .... .... …. Petitioner

¶21

Versus

¶22

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

¶23

------

¶24

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶25

------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate (B.A. No.2622 of 2025) Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate (B.A. No.1886 of 2025) Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate (B.A. No.2052 of 2025 and B.A. No.2053 of 2025) For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl.P.P. (B.A. No.2622 of 2025) Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P.

¶26

(B.A. No.1886 of 2025) Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P. (B.A. No.2052 of 2025) Ms. Amrita Kumari, Addl.P.P (B.A. No.2053 of 2025)

¶27

Order No.04 Dated-18-06-2025

¶28

I.A. No.6069 of 2025 of B.A. No.2622 of 2025

¶29

Heard the parties.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner of B.A. No.2622 of 2025 does not press this interlocutory application.

¶31

Accordingly, this interlocutory application is rejected as not pressed.

¶32

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . ) B.A. No.2622 of 2025 with B.A. No.1886 of 2025 with B.A. No.2052 of 2025 with B.A. No.2053 of 2025

¶33

Heard the parties.

¶34

The petitioners of all these Bail Applications have been made accused in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No.142 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 319(2)/318(4)/338/336(3)/340(2)/61 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 66B/66C/66D/84C of I.T. Act.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners of all these Bail Applications submit that the allegation against the petitioners of all these Bail Applications are that the petitioners were involved in cyber crime and the petitioner of B.A. No.2622 of 2025 namely Koshar Ansari has defrauded the victims Anil Bhagat and Sanjeev Kumar to the tune of Rs.16,442/- and Rs.4,598/- respectively, the petitioner of B.A. No.1886 of 2025 namely Chotelal Yadav has defrauded the victim Anju Tiwari to the tune of Rs.4,598/- and there was no money trail involved in both B.A. No.2052 of 2025 and B.A. No.2053 of 2025. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioners of all these Bail Applications are false. It is then submitted that one mobile phone along with two SIM Cards was recovered from the possession of the petitioner of B.A. No.2622 of 2025 namely Koshar Ansari, one mobile phone along with two SIM Cards was recovered from the possession of the petitioner of B.A. No.1886 of 2025 namely Chotelal Yadav, one mobile phone along with SIM Card was recovered from the possession of the petitioner of B.A. No.2052 of 2025 namely Gopal Kumar and one mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the

¶36

petitioner of B.A. No.2053 of 2025 namely Bhagat Kumar @ Bhagat Kumar Ray @ Bhagat Ray. It is then submitted that the petitioners of the all these Bail Applications have been in custody since 31.12.2024 as is evident from para-9, para-22, para-18 and para-18 respectively of the instant bail applications concerned. It is then submitted that all the petitioners have no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-11, para-22, para-19 and para-19 respectively in the respective bail applications. It is further submitted that the petitioner of B.A. No.2622 of 2025 namely Koshar Ansari undertakes to transfer Rs.16,442/and Rs.4,598/- to the Bank Account of Anil Bhagat and Sanjeev Kumar respectively without prejudice to his defence in the case concerned and the petitioner of B.A. No.1886 of 2025 namely Chotelal Yadav also undertakes to transfer Rs.4,598/- to the Bank Account of Anju Tiwari without prejudice to his defence in the case concerned. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners of all these Bail Applications also undertake to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners of all these Bail Applications be released on bail.

¶37

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State in B.A. No.2622 of 2025 and all the learned Addl.P.Ps. appearing for the State in all the other respective Bail Applications oppose the prayer for bail of the petitioners of all these Bail Applications.

¶38

Considering the facts of this case, all the above-named petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail:-

¶39

I. Petitioner of B.A. No.2622 of 2025 namely Koshar Ansari is directed to be enlarged on bail on showing proof of transfer of Rs.16,442/and Rs.4,598/- to the Bank Account of Anil Bhagat and Sanjeev Kumar respectively without prejudice to his defence in this case and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II-cum-Spl. Judge, Cyber Crime, Deoghar;

¶40

II. Petitioner of B.A. No.1886 of 2025 namely Chotelal Yadav is directed to be enlarged on bail on showing proof of transfer of Rs.4,598/- to the Bank Account of Anju Tiwari without prejudice to his defence in this case and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like

¶41

amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IIcum-Spl. Judge, Cyber Crime, Deoghar;

¶42

III. Petitioners of B.A. No.2052 of 2025 and B.A. No.2053 of 2025 are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- each (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II-cum-Spl. Judge, Cyber Crime, Deoghar;

¶43

All in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No.142 of 2024 with the condition that they will co-operate with the trial of the case and furnish their mobile numbers and photocopy of their Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the trial of the case .

¶44

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶45

Saroj/

Chotelal Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chotelal Yadav 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

Nivas Chandra Panjiara Alias Niwash Chandra Panjiyara Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashupriya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baldeo Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Srinivasalu Basapatti Alias Sinu Vs State of Jharkhand

Shahnawaz Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satya Narayan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand