Sunil v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
- Bench
- AMBU
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Information Technology Act, 2000 ss. 66(C), 66(D)
- Telecommunication Act, 2023 s. 42(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the submission made above, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like…
Judgment
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath For the Petitioner: Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate For the O.P-State: Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. --- --- 03 / 28.02.2025 Heard the parties.
Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Jama P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 557 of 2024 for the offences registered under sections 419/420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, section 66(C)/66(D) of I.T. Act and section 42(3) of Telecommunication Act, 2023, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka.
On 23.03.2024, Jama Police on the basis of confidential information that co-accused Santosh Kumar Mandal was involved in cyber offence, raided his house. On search, four mobile phones and e- gadgets were recovered from his possession.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that name of the petitioner has transpired in the confession of co-accused Santosh Kumar Mandal. It was further submitted that Santosh Kumar Mandal has been granted bail by this court vide B.A. No. 6721 of
In view of the submission made above, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in connection with Jama P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 557 of 2024. Ranjeet/ Uploaded (Ambuj Nath, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.