Mahesh Kumar Poddar vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the

lockdown period is over.

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Cyber Crime Case No.47 of 2020 arising out of Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.04

of 2020 registered under sections 420/467/ 468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66C/D of I.T. Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has sent QR code for selling and purchasing

articles on OLX and in the name of cash back used to send link by intimating non-suspecting persons and used to talk to various persons over their

mobile phone by intimating that they have won prizes and used to take the ATM card numbers, CVV number, validity date, account number and used

to swindle away money from the account of innocent persons along with co-accused persons and Rs.13,00,000/-in cash and seven ATM cards,

cheque books of various banks, mobile handsets, router of JIO FI, two pen drives, one memory card, three sim cards of different companies and one

pan card was seized from the possession of the petitioner. It is also alleged that through his Axis Bank account, Jamshedpur Branch, he has cheated

different persons of various parts of the country of Rs.11,94,756/- and by using a forged address, he opened an account with ICICI Bank, Jamshedpur

Branch. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and nothing has been recovered by the police in this case and in

the memo of evidence it has wrongly been mentioned that Rs.13,00,000/- has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is next submitted

that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period of time. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the memo of evidence sent by the inspector of

police- cum- Officer-in-charge of Cybercrime Police Station, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur dated 06.01.2021, it has been categorically mentioned by

the Officer-in-charge that Rs.13,00,000/- cash kept in a suitcase of maroon colour has been seized from the petitioner and since the petitioner is a

habitual criminal involved in cybercrime throughout the country, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is

submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as his criminal antecedent of being involved in 4 other cases as also the

recovery of huge amount of money from him both in cash and through bank transactions, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case

where the above named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order

in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months

from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the

precautions relating to COVID -19 Pandemic.