Dismissed¶6

Koushik Das Allias Kaushik Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2025A.B.A./2383/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail dismissed; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; A.B.A. No.2383 of 2025; Section 482 BNSS 2023; Sections 419 & 420 IPC; Airtel tower installation fraud/cheating; Rs.3,50,200/-; Rs.2,25,000/-; Bank Account No.0412010219070; Sadar P.S. Case No.296 of 2019; pending before J.M.F.C. Ranchi; Ananda Sen, J.; decided 08.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

The court recorded the allegation that the petitioner duped the informant on the pretext of installing an Airtel tower and took Rs.3,50,200/- in Bank Account bearing No.0412010219070. ¶6

Koushik Das Allias Kaushik Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:JHHC:18333

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2383 of 2025

¶3

Koushik Das @ Kaushik Das, S/o Sailen Das. … … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party

¶5

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶6

For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ayushi Aman, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.

¶7

09/ 08.07.2025

¶8

Heard the parties.

¶9

2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.296 of 2019, for offences under Sections 419 & 420 IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C. at Ranchi.

¶10

3. There is an allegation that this petitioner has induced the informant to pay Rs.3,50,200/- on the pretext of installing Airtel tower. The informant was asked to deposit Rs.2,25,000/- in the account of this petitioner and then the informant could come to know that this petitioner is a fraud and has cheated him.

¶11

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in catering business and since the informant owed some money from Manoj Jha, the amount was deposited in the account of this petitioner.

¶12

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the amount so deposited was not by Manoj Jha but was by the informant, so the defence of the petitioner cannot

¶13

2025:JHHC:18333

¶14

be accepted.

¶15

6. After hearing the parties, I find that there is an allegation that the petitioner has duped the informant on the pretext of installing the Airtel tower. He has taken Rs.3,50,200/in Bank Account bearing No.0412010219070. The petitioner cannot deny the fact that this account is not in the name of this petitioner. Thus, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands

¶16

dismissed .

¶17

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶18

Prashant. Cp-3

Koushik Das Allias Kaushik Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koushik Das Allias Kaushik Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Hajra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Saieed Hasan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jithu Kisku Alias Jethu Kisku Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karuna Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madin Shekh Alias Moddin Shekh Vs the State of Jharkhand