Md. Rizwan Ansari @ Rizwan Ansari … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) B.A .No. 1403 of 2024 Md. Rizwan Ansari @ Rizwan Ansari … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party Nitesh Kumar with B.A. No. 1570 of 2024 Versus … … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party with B.A. No. 1571 of 2024 Dubey Mandal @ Dubai Kumar Mandal @ Dubey Kr Mandal Versus … … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party Sajid Ansari with B.A. No. 1587 of 2024 Versus … … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party Sajjad Ansari with B.A. No. 1679 of 2024 Versus … … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party Anuj Kumar with B.A. No. 1855 of 2024 Versus … … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party with B.A. No. 1903 of 2024 Dindayal Ray … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Petitioner(s) For the State : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate [B.A .No. 1403 of 2024] : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate [B.A. No. 1570 of 2024, B.A. No. 1571 of 2024] : Mr. A.K. Choudhary, Advocate [B.A. No. 1587 of 2024, B.A. No. 1679 of 2024] : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate [ BA No. 1855 of 2024, BA No. 1903 of 2024] : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, APP [ B.A .No. 1403 of 2024] : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, APP [B.A. No. 1570 of 2024] : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, APP [ B.A. No. 1571 of 2024] : Ms. Ruby Pandey, APP [B.A. No. 1587 of 2024] -2- : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Spl. P.P. [ BA No. 1679 of 2024] : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra [ BA No. 1855 of 2024] : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP [ BA No. 1903 of 2024] 05 /09.05.2024 All the bail applications arise from the same police station case
Decision
number, therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. The petitioners are accused in connection with Deoghar ( Cyber) P.S. Case No. 80 of 2023 registered under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 66 (B), 66 (C), 66(D) & 84 ( C) of the Information Technology Act pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar. The learned counsel for the petitioner in BA No. 1403 of 2024 submits that from the possession of this petitioner three mobile phones with three SIM Cards were recovered, however no body has been cheated and no transactions of cyber crime has been traced to the mobiles or SIMs seized from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent apart from this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner in BA No. 1570 of 2024 submits that from the possession of this petitioner single mobile phone and single SIM and three debit cards have been recovered. It is further stated that no transaction can be traced to this mobile or SIM that pertains to cyber crime. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The learned counsel for the petitioner in BA No. 1571 of 2024 submits that from this petitioner one mobile set and 2 SIMs have been recovered and no offence of cheating has been reported by any person against this petitioner. It is further submitted that there is only one criminal antecedent against this petitioner which pertains to section 307 of the IPC and in that case the petitioner is on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner in BA No. 1587 of 2024 submits that one mobile and one SIM was recovered from this petitioner but there is no tracing of any offence committed by these mobile or SIM. It is further submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The learned counsel for the petitioner in BA No. 1679 of 2024 -3- submits that one mobile and one SIM was recovered from this petitioner but no offence of cheating has been complained by anyone against the petitioner and there is no cyber offence traced to the mobile or SIM. Counsel further submits that the father of the petitioner is a cancer patient, therefore, he may be allowed the privilege of bail. It is further submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The learned counsel for the petitioner in BA No. 1855 of 2024 submits that from this petitioner one mobile, one SIM and one debit card have been recovered from the petitioner and apart from this case petitioner has no other criminal antecedent. The learned counsel for the petitioner in BA No. 1903 of 2024 submits that from the possession of this petitioner one mobile, one SIM and three debit cards and two SIMs from back cover of mobile phone have been recovered. It is further submitted that no offence has been traced to these SIMs, mobile phone and the debit cards and no person has complained about cheating against this petitioner and the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent. The learned counsels for the petitioners appearing in all the cases have submitted that similarly situated co-accused, namely, Kaleshwar Kumar @ Baleshwar Kumar @ Kaleshwar Kumar Ray and Damru Ray @ Damru Kumar have been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 1615 of 2024 and in BA No. 1617 of the 2024 respectively vide order dated 09.04.2024. It is further submitted that other co-accused, namely, Bhim Kumar @ Bhim Kumar Ray and Sotam Kumar have also been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court in B.A. No. 1453 of 2024 and in BA No. 1484 of 2024 respectively vide order dated 04.04.2024, therefore, the petitioners of all the bail applications, above named, may also be allowed the privilege of bail. The learned counsel for the State, in BA No. 1403 of 2024 opposed the bail application and submitted that recovery has been made and the allegations have been made against many persons, therefore, the petitioner may not be allowed the bail. The learned counsel for the State in BA No. 1570 of 2024 also supported the recovery. The learned counsel for the State in BA No. 1571 of 2024 also supported the recovery and submits that the petitioner is a part of gang committing cyber crime. The learned counsel for the State in BA No. 1587 of 2024 submits that one mobile and one SIM was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State in BA No. 1679 of 2024 submits that there are as many as 118 plus 535 complaints on the -4- portal in different States relating to SIM used in the cyber crime. The learned counsel for the State in BA No. 1855 of 2024 submits that in his confessional statement the petitioner has conceded to his crime. The learned counsel for the State in BA No. 1903 of 2024 submits referring to the impugned order that from this petitioner one mobile, one SIM, two SIM in the back cover and three debit cards of SBI , Kotak and IPPB have been seized. All the learned counsels for the State have submitted that for the aforesaid reasons, bail should not be allowed to the petitioners of all the bail applications, above named. Having heard both counsels, gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioners of all the bail applications, named above, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar ( Cyber) P.S. Case No. 80 of 2023 , subject to the condition that the petitioners shall report to the concerned police station on every last Saturday of the month, between 01:00 and 05:00 p.m for one year, failing which or if any adverse remarks regarding their non- appearance at the police station, their bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled. Any exemption to such attendance shall be done so after direction of the learned Court below and the petitioners shall remain present on each and every date of trial before the Court below unless dispensed with by the learned Court below with further condition that the petitioners will submit self-attested photocopy of their Aadhaar Cards and also submit their mobile numbers before the learned court below which they will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court. Sharda/ (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)