High CourtsSingle Bench

Bablu Mandal vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 10 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 JH CK 0093

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66(B), 66(C), 66(D), 84(C)
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 741 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 419 words

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the

lockdown is over.

In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the

present.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Deoghar Cyber P.S. case no. 61 of 2020 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471

and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(B)/ 66(C)/ 66(D)/84(C) of the I.T. Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is an infamous cybercriminal and

from the custody of the petitioner, five mobile phones with sim cards have been recovered. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in judicial

custody since 06.10.2020 as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the bail application and the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the

case and he is also ready and willing to pay Rs. 5,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the victim- Md. Irfan, S/o of Ekhlak Khadiwada,

Curchorem, South Goa, whose address and mobile number has been mentioned in paragraph 110 of the case diary without prejudice to his defence

hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the facts of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on

depositing Rs. 5,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of victim- Md. Irfan, S/o of Ekhlak Khadiwada, Curchorem, South Goa, as mentioned

in paragraph 110 of the case diary as ad interim victim compensation and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with

two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Deoghar in connection with Deoghar Cyber P.S. case no. 61 of 2020

subject to the condition that the petitioner will co- operate with the trial of the case.

In case of depositing aforesaid demand draft by the petitioner, learned court below is directed to send the demand draft to the aforesaid victim through

speed post at the address mentioned in paragraph 110 of the case diary and if necessary collecting the detailed address from the Investigating Officer.