Rahul Mandal @ Rahul Kumar Mondal vs State Of Jharkhand

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S.

Case No.35 of 2019 registered under sections 414/419/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66 B/C/D of I.T. Act.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that earlier also the petitioner was involved in a case of

cybercrime and police on raiding his house recovered three mobile phones, one packet of sim card, one view card of T.V., two Rural Kiosk Banking

card, one SBI ATM card, one cheque book, two ATM cards of ICICI bank, one ATM card of Bandhan Bank, one ATM card of AXIS Bank, one

ATM card of Fino Payment Bank, one ATM card of Federal Bank, two laptops, cash of Rs.4,30,000/-, Sony T.V., another L.G. T.V., two

motorcycles, Maruti Swift Dzire Car and on being enquired by the raiding police party, the father of the petitioner admitted that the petitioner is aged

about 21 years and is an unemployed person and has committed cybercrime and earned Rs.30,00,000/- and constructed a house fixed with marbles

and has purchased other valuable articles and he has earned this money by impersonating as a bank officer and having collected ATM number, CVV

number, OTP number of various non-suspecting customers of the bank by such impersonation. It is further submitted that the allegation against the

petitioner are all false and since police has mentioned in the FIR that the police got the secret information in 2 hours at night of 04.08.2019 but

prepared the self-statement of the informant at 4:30 am on 04.08.2019 hence, it is submitted that the secret information has been received after the

FIR as the night of 04.08.2019 means 02:00 am of 05.08.2019. It is next submitted that the petitioner’s father is working in Government Service

being a Railway Employee. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that since in the FIR it has been

categorically mentioned that secret information was received at 2 hours on night of 04.08.2019 the same means the secret information was received at

2 am of 04.08.2019 and the date of receipt of secret information having been categorically mentioned in the FIR itself, it cannot be treated to be 2 am

of 05.08.2019. It is next submitted that keeping in view huge amount of property mortgaged by unemployed young man and also keeping in view that

huge amount of materials including mobile handsets which has trace of commission of cybercrime as well as the criminal antecedent of the petitioner,

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly essential during the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be

given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as his criminal antecedent and the trace of cybercrime as found in the seized

mobile and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit

case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.