Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28564 (JHR)

ABDUL MOJIB ALIAS MD ABDUL MOJIB v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./9788/2024 · 2025-03-06

Ambuj Nath

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 9788 of 2024 Abdul Mojib @ Md. Abdul Mojib, aged about 30 years, son of Abdul Hamid, resident of village Samalpur (Muslim Basti), Sarath, P.O and P.S. Patharda, District Deoghar --- --- Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opp. Party --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate For the O.P-State: Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Special P.P. --- 04 / 06.03.2025 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Bolba P.S. Case No. 04 of 2023 for the offences registered under sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Simdega. 3. On 05.01.2023 the Informant Illiyajar Kullu Kujur received a call on his mobile from mobile no. 9839604052, wherein caller told him that he is calling from the Agriculture Department, Ranchi. He informed the Informant that he will be allotted a tractor and Rs. 2,86,000/- by the State Government for which, he has to deposit Rs. 25,500/- as tax. The Informant believing the caller to be true, deposited the aforesaid amount in the given account. The Informant further deposited Rs. 36,200/- and later Rs. 37,200/- in the given account. However, no tractor was given to him, as promised. Subsequently, this case has been instituted. 4. During the course of investigation, this petitioner was apprehended in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No. 66 of 2024 in which he confessed his involvement in the present case. 5. It appears that the petitioner is involved in as many as five cases of similar nature. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected, at this stage. Petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after six months. (Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/