Jharkhand High Court
Raghunath Rakshit Son Of Saroj Rakshit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 September, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.A(SJ) No. 439 of 2024
Raghunath Rakshit son of Saroj Rakshit, resident of village- Madnadih, P.O.
& P.S.- Narayanpur, District- Jamtara .. .. ..Appellant
--VERSUS--
The State Of Jharkhand ... ..Respondent
with
Cr.A(SJ) No. 447 of 2024
Alimuddin Ansari @ Sultan aged about 33 years son of Dukhan Mian,
resident of village- Madanadih, P.O. & P.S.- Narayanpur, District- Jamtara
.. .. ..Appellant
--VERSUS--
The State Of Jharkhand ... ..Respondent
---------
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv
(in Cr.A(SJ) No. 439 of 2024)
For the Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, APP
(in Cr.A(SJ) No. 439 of 2024)
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Pd.Joshi, Adv
(in Cr.A(SJ) No. 447 of 2024)
For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, APP
(in Cr.A(SJ) No. 447 of 2024)
04/DATED: 25-09-2024
I.A. No. 8078 of 2024 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 439 of 2024
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant
for grant of bail during the pendency of this appeal
The Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 439 of 2024 has been filed against the
judgment and order of conviction and order of sentence both dated
28.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jamtara in
connection with Cyber Case No. 38 of 2023 ( arising out of Jamtara cyber
crime PS Case No. 21 of 2023) by which the appellant has been convicted
under section 66 (D) of the IT Act and has been sentenced to undergo RI for
two years and pay a fine of Rs. 25000/-. In case of default of payment of fine
to undergo SI for two months separately. The period of custody undergone by
them during trial, if any, shall be set off as per rules.
The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to para 17 of the
instant interlocutory application and pointed out that the appellant is in
custody from 15.04.2023 and, therefore spent about one year and five months
in custody and, therefore, spent maximum period of sentence out of imposed
sentence of two years. It is further submitted that all the witnesses examined
are police witnesses and no any independent witness has been examined from
the locality. It is further submitted that the appellant has been convicted on the
basis of confessional statement of co-accused and alleged false recovery
without there being any victim coming forward and lodging any case against
him. It is further submitted that the appellant has been examined under section
315 Cr.P.C. as a witness and has deposed that on 14.04.2023 he was called by
the police in the police station and has been illegally arrested in this case and
has clearly stated that no raid was conducted at his home and no recovery was
made but his signature was obtained forcibly on the alleged seizure list.
The learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail prayer and
submitted that serious allegation regarding cyber offence had been comitted
and, therefore, bail may not be allowed to the appellant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through
the records of the case, having gone through the custodial period and in the facts
and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the appellant, named
above, on bail, during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jamtara
in connection with Cyber Case No. 38 of 2023( arising out of Jamtara cyber
crime PS Case No. 21 of 2023).
Accordingly, I.A. No. 8078 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 447 of 2024 is admitted.
List, both the criminal appeals, i.e. Cr. Appeal No. 439 of 2024 with
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.447 of 2024, in seriatim.
( Ratnaker Bhengra,J)
sharda/-
