Chhotu Mandal vs State Of Jharkhand

Deepak Roshan, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant bail application has been preferred by the petitioner for grant of regular bail for the offences registered under Sections 419/420/34 of the IPC and Section 66(C), 66(D) of I.T. Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only for the reason that he was standing at the place of occurrence. He further submits that he is a railway employee and has nothing to do with the cybercrime. He further submits that the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2023 in B.A. No.7837 of 2023 and the petitioner is lying in judicial custody since 24.05.2023.

Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that there are certain messages which indicates the allegation to be true. However, he fairly submits that there is no criminal antecedent of this petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and looking to the allegation made against this petitioner and also the fact that the co-accused has been granted bail as well as the petitioner is an employee of railway is languishing in custody since 24.05.2023, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, in connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No. 51 of 2023.

It is made clear that till commencement of trial the petitioner shall report to the local police station 2nd week of every month and after commencement of trial he shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court, failing which learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner.