Jharkhand High Court
Anuj Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 42 of 2022
---------
Anuj Rai ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Dev Advocate
: Mrs. Dipita Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl.P.P.
---------
Order No. 21/ Dated: 03.10.2023
The present Criminal Revision Application has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the judgment dated
22.12.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2021 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Koderma, by which, the learned Court
below has dismissed the said Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2021 and has
affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
08.07.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Koderma in connection with Telaiya P.S Case No.66 of 2019 arising
out of G.R No.211 of 2019 (T.R No.881 of 2019, by which, the
petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 420 of
the I.P.C and also for the offences under Sections 66B, 66C, 66D of
the Information Technology Act, 2000 and has been sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of seven (07) years and
to pay the fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 420 of the
IPC and has further been sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment
for a period of (02) two months, in case of default of offence under
Sections 420 of the IPC.
The petitioner is further sentenced to undergo S.I for a
period of 03 (three) years and to pay the fine of Rs.5000/- and S.I
for a period of 02 (two) months in case of default of payment of fine
for the offence under Section 66B of the I.T. Act, 2000. The petitioner
-2
is further sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of three (03) years
and to pay the fine of Rs.5000 and S.I for a period of two (02) months
in case of default of payment of fine for the offence under Section
66C of the I.T Act, 2000, S.I for a period of three (03) years and to
pay the fine of Rs.5000 and S.I for a period of two (02) months in
case of default of payment of fine for offences under Section 66D of
the I.T. Act, 2000. However, all the sentences have been directed to
run concurrently.
2. I.A. No. 8683 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail during pendency of the present Criminal
Revision.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Special P.P. for the State .
4. It is submitted that the judgments and order passed by the
learned Court below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has been arrested merely on suspicion.
It is further submitted that no one has been cheated and hence, no
offence as under Section 420 of the IPC is proved against the
petitioner. It is submitted that a total of four (04) ATM Cards were
found in the possession of the petitioner and which belonged to the
family members of the petitioner and in which three to the ATM
Cards belong to the Axis Bank bearing card No. 6522360000759112,
4616800011005855 6521570110009593 and on belongs to the State
Bank of India bearing Card No. 5596010156584672 which does not
amount to any offence under section 420 of the I.P.C. and under
section 66 C of the IT Act and photocopies of the alleged ATM
Cards along with the passbook has been annexed as Annexure I/1 of
the I.A. No. 8683 of 2023. It is submitted that earlier prayer for bail
of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court on 03.08.2022 in I.A.
No. 1007 of 2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner was in
-3
custody from 08.04.2019 and was released on regular bail by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.11.2019 vide B.A. No. 5665 of
2019 thereafter the petitioner is in custody since 08.07.2021 after
dismissal of said Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2021 by the learned
Appellate Court and hence, 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 petitioner has
been named in the F.I.R and he is involved in cyber crime and has
been arrested with five (05) ATM Cards. It is submitted that P.W.2,
P.W.3 and P.W.4 have supported the case against this petitioner.
6. Perused the Lower Court Records, and considered the
submission made on behalf of the parties.
7. It transpires that earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner
has been rejected by this Court on 03.08.2022 in I.A. No. 1007 of
2022.
8. It transpires that the petitioner was caught red handed
with five ATM Cards. It transpires that P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are
the eye-witnesses, who have supported the allegation against this
petitioner . It also transpires that on the basis of the confessional
statement of this petitioner, co-accused person namely, Santosh
Yadav, had been arrested and one ATM Card was also recovered from
the possession of co-accused person.
9. It transpires that the petitioner was arrested on 08.04.2019
and was released on regular bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
on 14.11.2019 vide B.A. No. 5665 of 2019 . Thereafter the petitioner
is in custody since 08.07.2021 after dismissal of said Criminal
Appeal No. 15 of 2021 by the learned Appellate Court.
10. It appears from the impugned judgment and the Lower
Court Record of learned Court below that five (05) ATM Cards,
-4
which were seized from the petitioner, had not been marked as the
Material Exhibits before the learned Trial Court below.
11. It appears that the co-convict namely Santosh Kumar
Yadav has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2023
in Criminal Revision No. 256 of 2022.
12. Considering the period of custody of the petitioner and on
the facts and in the circumstances of this case, during pendency of this
Criminal Revision, the petitioner namely, Anuj Rai, is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with
Telaiya P.S Case No.66 of 2019 arising out of G.R
No.211 of 2019 (T.R No.881 of 2019 ) subject to the condition that one
of the bailers must be own relative of the petitioner and the petitioner
shall furnish an Undertaking that he will remain present at the time of
the Final Hearing and the petitioner must file an Undertaking not to
get indulged in such type of crime in future again failing which the
prosecution will be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail.
and furnish his self attested copy of his Aadhar Card and also submit
his mobile number before the learned Court below and which shall
remain active and shall not change his mobile number during the
pendency of this appeal .
13. I.A. No. 8683 of 2023 is allowed and stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Bibha/
