IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No.3542 of 2022

------

Siraj Ansari

....

....

….

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

....

....

....Opposite Party

------

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Spl.P.P

------

Order No.04 Dated- 18.08.2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Doranda P.S. Case

No. 129 of 2021 instituted under Sections 420, 406 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 66(C) and 66(D) of I.T. Act, the petitioner has moved

this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

As per FIR, the allegation is that, the informant’s mother called

through Just dial, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi for information regarding

Covaxin but the said number appears to be illegal. Thereafter, a call was

received from Mob. No.8389994661, who identified himself as Rajesh

Kumar and requested to deposit registration fee Rs.5/- through Paytm.

It is further alleged that a link was forwarded to informant’s mother in

the said link she put her account number, name, expiry date, CVV

Number and asked to forward this information to Mob. No.9717465555.

It is further alleged that she was asked to download Anytime App and

meanwhile, Rs.4,999 was debited and after sometime, she received an

OTP for withdrawal of Rs.49,999/- thereafter, she uninstalled the said

App and reported in the Cyber Crime Branch. It is further alleged that

total Rs.99,998/- has been withdrawn from the account of informant’s

mother.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all as alleged in

F.I.R. It is further submitted that the mobile number mentioned in the

FIR does not belong to the petitioner and was never used by him. No

money has been transferred in the account of petitioner from the

account of victim. In case of his arrest at the hands of police, petitioner

shall sustain irreparable loss. It is further submitted that petitioner

undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and will not

indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all

terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting

anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner may be

extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for

anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that in course of

investigation, on the basis of Mobile Call Details and use of SIM card

showing the involvement of present petitioner came into light in the

alleged offence. As per Para 40, serial 6 of case diary, it is found that

Mob.

No.8389994661

was

used

in

mobile

phone

of

IMEI

No.86579604376759 by one Swapan Haldar W/o Ranjan Halder, Add.-

Chowdhurichak Bhatia, Dholahat, Bhagabanpur Mathurapur-1, South

24 Parganas(WB) but the said Vivo Company mobile and SIM Card

having Mob. No. 605484846 issued in the name of petitioner, the

maximum tower location of the said mobile was shown near Khori

Mahua Gande, Giridih, Koromahua-01, Jharkhand. It is further

submitted that petitioner has criminal antecedent of similar type of

offence, hence, the custodial interrogation of petitioner is required for

further investigation. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege

of anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature

of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on

record showing prima-facie involvement of petitioner in the alleged

offence as per materials collected during the investigation and criminal

antecedent, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail

to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for antic