Jharkhand High Court
Rohit Raj @ Buti vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 12 January, 2021
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 10812 of 2020
------
Rohit Raj @ Buti ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. V.N. Jha, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.02 Dated- 12.01.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.
In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Hazaribag Sadar P.S. Case No.124 of 2020 registered under sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66 (C) of I.T. Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with co-accused persons in criminal conspiracy has prepared forged and fake website in the name of PM Cares Relief Fund and appealed to the general public to donate in the said fund. It is also alleged that an account was opened by the petitioner and several lakhs of rupees were transferred in the said bank account and after the money was transferred to the said account, the money was withdrawn by the petitioner through other bank accounts. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.09.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 11 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the co-accused- Noor Hassan has already been admitted to bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2020 in B.A. No.6340 of 2020. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that co-accused- Bablu Hembrom and Raushan Kumar have been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court and also by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2020 and 11.01.2021 in B.A. Nos.6461 of 2020 and 10727 of 2020 respectively. It is next submitted that keeping in view the huge amount of public money running over the several lakhs of rupees have been cheated by the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of swindling away of public money of over several lakhs of rupees in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the precautions relating to COVID -19 Pandemic.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/