Jharkhand High Court
Ritesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 493 of 2021
.....
Ritesh Kumar ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Senior Advocate
Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl.P.P.
......
I.A. No. 2658 of 2023
09/ 03.04.2023 Heard Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Shailendra Kumar
Tiwari, learned counsel for the State.
2. The instant I.A. No. 2658 of 2023 has been filed on behalf
of the appellant for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to
the appellant, during pendency of the Criminal Appeal.
3. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 26.08.2021
and order of sentence dated 31.08.2021 passed by learned Special
Judge (Cyber Crime), East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cyber
Crime Case No. 26 of 2020 alongwith Cyber Crime No. 47 of
2020 whereby the appellant-Ritesh Kumar along with four others
Sonu Kumar Mahato, Pradip Mazumdar, Mantosh Kumar Poddar
and Mahesh Kumar Poddar have been convicted for charges for
committing the offences punishable under Sections
420/468/471/419 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66-C and
66-D of the I. T. Act and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a
period of seven (07) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the
offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and in default
of fine, further sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of
Six (6) months.
The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo R. I. for
a period of seven (07) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- for
the offences under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and in
default of fine, further sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of
Six (06) months. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo R. I.
for a period of three (03) years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,00,000/-
for the offences under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and in
default of fine, further sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of
three(03) months. The appellant has also been sentenced to
undergo R. I. for a period of three (03) years and to pay fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- for the offences under Section 120-B read with
420/468/471/419 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of fine,
further sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two (2) months.
The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo R. I. for
a period of three (03) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for
the offence under Section 66-C of the I. T. Act and in default of
fine, further sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two (02)
months and has further been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a
period of three (03) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the
offence under Section 66-D of the I. T. Act and in default of fine,
further sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two (02) months.
All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently,
however learned Court below has specifically ordered that the fine
imposed under the different Sections shall be paid separately and
the period of custody already undergone shall be set off.
4. It has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant that earlier the prayer for bail of the Appellant was
rejected vide order dated 13.05.2022 with an observation that the
appellant will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after
completing two years of sentence. It is submitted that the appellant
was in custody from 26.06.2020 to 11.01.2021 i.e. for more six
months and thereafter the appellant is in custody since 26.08.2021
i.e. for more than nineteen months and thus the appellant has
completed two years of sentence and as such, he may be enlarged
on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the appellant
has failed to explain availability of Rs. 3,69,000/- in his bank
account and as such prayer for bail of the appellant is fit to be
rejected.
6. Perused the Lower Court Records of this case and
considered the submissions of both the sides.
7. It transpires that earlier the prayer for bail of the Appellant
was rejected vide order dated 13.05.2022 with an observation that
the appellant will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after
completing two years of sentence.
8. It further transpires that the appellant was in custody from
26.06.2020 to 11.01.2021 i.e. for more six months and thereafter
the appellant is in custody since 26.08.2021 i.e. for more than
nineteen months and thus the appellant appears to have completed
two years of sentence.
9. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
during pendency of this Criminal Appeal, the appellant - Ritesh
Kumar is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds
of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Ajit Kumar Singh,
learned Special Judge (Cyber Crime), East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur or his Successor Court in connection with Cyber
Crime Case No. 47 of 2020 arising out of Cyber Crime P. S. Case
No. 04 of 2020 subject to the condition that both the bailors must
be own relatives of the appellant and one of the bailor must be
having landed properties in his/her own specific name and
appellant shall also file an Undertaking before the learned Court
below that he will not get indulged in such type of crime in future
again, otherwise prosecution will be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation his bail and the appellant shall file an Undertaking
before the learned Court below that he will remain present at the
time of final hearing of this Appeal, failing which bail of the
appellant will be cancelled.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2658 of 2023 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the office of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur for the
needful.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
