Jharkhand High Court
Ritesh Kumar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand ...... Opposite ... on 13 October, 2020
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION]
B.A. No. 5890 of 2020
.......
Ritesh Kumar Das ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
-----
With
B.A. No. 6251 of 2020
.......
Vikash Kumar Das @ Vikash Das ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
-----
With
B.A. No. 6022 of 2020
.......
Kuldip Kumar Das ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
With
B.A. No. 6050 of 2020
.......
Umesh Mahra ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
With
B.A. No. 5756 of 2020
.......
Niranjan Das ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
With
B.A. No. 5757 of 2020
.......
Chandan Kumar Das ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
With
B.A. No. 5920 of 2020
.......
Pradip Kumar Das @ Pradeep Kumar Das ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl.P.P. (Cyber Crime)
-----
03/Dated: 13/10/2020:
All these seven bail applications are being heard together as they are arising out of Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case No.37 of 2020 and disposed of, by this common order.-2-
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has given an undertaking to comply the previous order with regard to removal of the defect(s).
3. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rahul Ranjan and learned Spl. P.P. (Cyber Crime), Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case No.37 of 2020, for the offence registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 IPC and Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) and 84(C) of the Information Technology Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners, Ritesh Kumar Das, Kuldip Kumar Das and Niranjan Das have been made accused on the ground that they have been found with mobile phones in which they were talking to several persons and those were unexplained by the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that talking to several persons is not an offence but admittedly no material has been collected by the police with regard to transaction of money made by these petitioners or from the mobile seized by the police from these petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that petitioners, Ritesh Kumar Das and Kuldip Kumar Das have no criminal antecedent but petitioner, Niranjan Das has been made accused in the year, 2017 and he has been granted anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court as his name transpired in the confessional statement of the co-accused and his father is a blind person, as such, his case is different from other accused and may be considered on different footing.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that so far petitioners, Vikash Kumar Das @ Vikash Das, Umesh Mahra, Chandan Kumar Das and Pradip Kumar Das @ Pradeep Kumar Das are concerned these persons have been made accused on the statement recorded by the investigating officer of some of the persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but admittedly those persons who are claimed to be victim of these petitioners have never made any complaint before any authority nor before the police, as such, petitioners have been falsely implicated and the police has unnecessarily mentioned the names of the some of the witnesses, whose statement have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as such, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
9. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that he has filed counter- affidavit but due to inadvertence in para 12 of the -3- counter-affidavit in the case of petitioner, Ritesh Kumar Das and at para 11 in the case of Kuldip Kumar Das it has been mentioned that charge-sheet has been submitted against them under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 IPC but Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) and 84(C) of the Information Technology Act have been left out.
10. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that against petitioner, Vikash Kumar Das @ Vikash Das in B.A. No.6251 of 2020, police has collected material regarding transfer of the money and the witnesses, whose statement recorded in paras 59, 60 and 61 of the case diary have alleged that the transaction of money was done just after they have been called and OTP was disclosed and the said mobile phone has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, Vikash Kumar Das @ Vikash Das.
11. From possession of petitioner, Kuldip Kumar Das in B.A. No.6022 of 2020 the said mobile was recovered, which was used in committing fraud and regarding the same statement was recorded by the victim in para 81 of the case diary.
12. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that with respect to petitioner, Umesh Mahra in B.A. No.6050 of 2020, the witness whose statement has been recorded in para 79 and 80 of the case diary about the transaction have stated that call was made and thereafter they have disclosed OTP details and accordingly, there was deduction of money. The mobile phone having same mobile number was seized from possession of the petitioner, Umesh Mahra.
13. From the possession of petitioner, Chandan Kumar Das in B.A. No.5757 of 2020 the said mobile was recovered, which was used in committing fraud with witnesses whose statement has been recorded in para 84, 85 and 86 of the case diary.
14. From the possession of petitioner, Pradip Kumar Das in B.A. No.5920 of 2020 the said mobile was recovered, which was used in committing fraud with witnesses whose statement has been recorded in para 56, 57 and 58 of the case diary.
15. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that there are ample materials against these petitioners, namely, Vikash Kumar Das @ Vikash Das, Kuldip Kumar Das, Umesh Mahra, Chandan Kumar Das and Pradip Kumar Das with regard to commission of offence. Several persons have alleged that they have been called by these petitioners from the mobile and after disclosing their OTP details they have been cheated by these petitioners and said mobile phones -4- were recovered from the possession of the aforesaid petitioners respectively.
16. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that though there are three ATM cards which were found from possession of petitioner (Niranjan Das), in the name of petitioner and his father, Suchit Mahra and mother, Pancham Devi from which a large number of transactions have been made in those accounts but no witness has been examined to corroborate the same.
17. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that petitioner, Ritesh Kumar Das, whose mobile no. was found to be involved in various conversation at different places, which has not been explained by Ritesh Kumar Das though he has no criminal antecedent. As such, these petitioners, who have been charge- sheeted under various Sections of the IPC and IT Act may not be enlarged on bail.
18. Considering the gravity of offence, the prayer for bail of the petitioners, namely, Vikash Kumar Das @ Vikash Das (B.A. No.6251 of 2020), Kuldip Kumar Das (B.A. No.6022 of 2020), Umesh Mahra (B.A. No.6050 of 2020), Chandan Kumar Das (B.A. No.5757 of 2020) and Pradip Kumar Das (B.A. No.5920 of 2020) is hereby rejected, as there are ample material collected during investigation with regard to transaction of money in several paragraphs of the case diary.
19. So far prayer for bail with regard to petitioner, Ritesh Kumar Das in B.A. No.5890 of 2020 is concerned, as he has no criminal antecedent and only allegation against him is that his mobile was used for conversation with several persons and no corroborative material has been collected during investigation, this Court is inclined to grant Bail to the petitioner (Ritesh Kumar Das).
20. Similarly in the case of petitioner, Niranjan Das in B.A. No.5756 of 2020, there is no evidence with regard to transaction of money and has been granted anticipatory bail in the case registered in the year 2017, as such, he is also directed to be released on bail as the money which has been deposited in the account of his father and mother are not alleged by any person.
21. Accordingly, petitioner (Ritesh Kumar Das in B.A. No.5890 of 2020) and petitioner (Niranjan Das in B.A. No.5756 of 2020), are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Deoghar in connection with Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case No.37 of 2020 on the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors shall be deponent/parivikar of the present case (in B.A. -5- No.5890 of 2020) namely, Vinod Mahra, S/o Huro Mahra, R/o Village- Aluwara, P.O.& P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand), who has furnished photocopy of his UID Card bearing No.9454 6888 7383 before this Court in the bail application.
(ii) One of the bailors shall be deponent/parivikar of the present case (in B.A. No.5756 of 2020) namely, Pankaj Kumar Das, S/o Nanku Mahra, R/o House No.2, Naya Kharna, P.O.& P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand), who has furnished photocopy of his UID Card bearing No.3967 5282 1403 before this Court in the bail application Office is directed to send photo copy of the UID Card bearing Nos. 9454 6888 7383 and 3967 5282 1403 of deponents along with this order to the court below so as to verify the authenticity of the bailor.
(iii) Another bailor shall be mother/father/brother/sister/son/wife.
(iv) Petitioner (Ritesh Kumar Das in B.A. No.5890 of 2020) shall appear before the Officer-in-Charge, Deoghar Cyber Criminal Police Station, Deoghar on 1 st Monday of each English calendar month at 10.30 a.m. and petitioner shall put his signature on the register maintained by the Officer-in-Charge for the said purpose. The petitioner shall appear before the Officer-in-Charge whenever called on his personal mobile number furnished by him.
The petitioner shall also furnished his mobile no. to the local police station i.e. before the Officer-in-Charge, Pathadda Police Station and shall appear/ response to them whenever they call him.
Petitioner shall not keep any other mobile number or any other A.T.M. Card during trial of this case.
(v) Petitioner (Niranjan Das in B.A. No.5756 of 2020) shall appear before the Officer-in-Charge, Deoghar Cyber Criminal Police Station, Deoghar on 1 st Monday of each English calendar month at 10.30 a.m. and petitioner shall put his signature on the register maintained by the Officer-in-Charge for the said purpose. The petitioner shall appear before the Officer-in-Charge whenever called on his personal mobile number furnished by him.
The petitioner shall also furnished his mobile no. to the local police station i.e. before the Officer-in-Charge, Sarath Police Station and shall appear/ response to them whenever they call him.
Petitioner shall not keep any other mobile number or any other A.T.M. Card during trial of the case.
-6-(vi) Petitioners shall also appear before the trial court on each and every date till conclusion of the trial.
(vii) The Jail Authority shall release the petitioners only after their medical check-up.
(viii) The Civil Surgeon, Deoghar is directed to medically examine the petitioners at the time of their release and if require, petitioners shall be taken for quarantine, but if no such requirement is there, they shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
(ix) Petitioners shall also comply with all the guidelines issued by the Government to meet the challenges of Covid-19, as the country is passing through Pandemic of Covid-19.
22. It is made clear that in case of any violation of the terms and conditions of the bail, the State is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioners.
23. Let a copy of this order be communicated through "FAX" to the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar at once for necessary compliance.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/R.S.