Jharkhand High Court
Sachin Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand ...... Opposite ... on 21 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 4435 of 2022
Sachin Mandal ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite party
----- -----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, A.P.P. .....
Order No.05/ Dated:21.06.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 14 of 2022, registered for the offence under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 353 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) and 84(C) of I.T. Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, (Cyber Crime Cases), Deoghar.
F.I.R. of this case was lodged against 9 named accused including the petitioner with the allegation of committing cybercrime. It is also alleged that from the possession of petitioner one Milky Coloured Vivo Android mobile along with sim cards were recovered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all as alleged in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that save and except confessional statement of petitioner no material has been collected during investigation showing any fraudulent transaction conducted by the petitioner falling under cyber crimes. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 15.02.2022 without rhymes and reasons. It is also submitted that other co-accused persons namely, Manuwar Ansari, Rakim Ansari @ Rakib Ansari @ Md. Rakim Ansari and Santosh Das have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in B.A. Nos. 4197 of 2022 and 4311 of 2022 vide order dated 17.06.2022 and 13.06.2022 respectively. It is also submitted that there is no chance of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner showing his involvement in the present case, hence he does not deserve bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and materials available on record, I am inclined to release the petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge II-cum-Special Judge, (Cyber Crime Cases), Deoghar in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 14 of 2022.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) R.K.