Raushan Kumar 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 Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No.124 of 2020 registered under sections

420/406 of the Indian Penal Code and 66(C) of the I.T. Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in cybercrime and he has

booked one website wherein a fake account of ""PM Cares Relief Fund"" being ""www.pmcarerelieffund.com"" was prepared and appeal was made to

the general public to deposit money in PM Cares Relief Fund. Subsequently, an account was also opened with the Union Bank of India in the name of

co-accused and Rs.1,70,791/- was deposited in the said account and 8 co-accused persons have also opened bank accounts and huge amount of public

money has been swindled away by the petitioner and the co-accused persons. It is next submitted that from the possession of the petitioner, Laptop,

Mobile Phone and Pen drive have been seized which was analyzed by the Cyber Forensic Lab C-DAC, through Image Cloning and from the same it

was found out that the fake websites being the www.pmcarerelieffund.com and pmcarerelieffund@gmail.com was prepared by submitting an

application from the I.P. address of the Laptop and Mobile Phone of the petitioner and the said alleged website and alleged e-mail I.D. was prepared

by the petitioner and the mobile handset which was used for making the alleged website and e-mail I.D. has been recovered from the possession of

the petitioner and the petitioner has admitted his guilt in his confessional statement. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has been apprehended from his residence at Muzaffarpur, Bihar on 12.09.2020. It is

next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.09.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 9 of the bail application. It is then

submitted that petitioner is an engineer and has completed his B. Tech from Punjab Technical University in the year 2018 and started a startup namely

'Festibloom' and as per the order received by the client namely Sunil @ Sourabh Aryan who is a resident of Biharsharif, Nalanda in the State of Bihar,

the petitioner booked/purchased the domain namely ""pmcarerelieffund.com"" from the web hosting company namely Global Host India Pvt. Ltd. and

for purchasing the said domain, the petitioner used his Laptop and internet connectivity of his mobile phone and the mobile number of his client namely

Sunil was used to receive the OTP. It is next submitted Sunil @ Sourabh Aryan is behind all the planning. It is then submitted that the co- accused

person has already been admitted to bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2020, passed in B.A. No. 6340 of 2020. 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 the prayer for bail of the co- accused namely -

Bablu Hembrom has already been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.09.2020, passed in B.A. No. 6461 of 2020 and it is

admitted that the booking/purchasing of the domain namely ""pmcarerelieffund.com"" is associated with the petitioner and the co-accused and being a

B.Tech from Punjab Technical University- the petitioner was very much aware that to whom such domain name belongs and it speaks volumes about

the involvement of the petitioner in this case and he has been responsible for swindling away huge amount of public money in the name of PM Cares

Relief Fund, therefore, 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, 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.