MD ABDUL MOJIB ALIAS ABDUL MOJIB v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./10623/2024 · 2025-03-06
Ambuj Nath
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 29316 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 29316 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 10623 of 2024
Md. Abdul Mojib @ 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. --- 05 / 06.03.2025 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No. 91 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 224 of 2024 for the offences registered under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega.
3. On 20.04.2024 the Informant Rajendra Baraik received a call on his mobile from mobile no. 7645875414. The caller introduced himself as an employee of the office of Chief Minister and told him that under the scheme of Government for drought area, tractor will be allotted to him. The caller asked him to deposit Rs. 35,000/- as the processing charge. The Informant deposited the said amount in the given account. The Informant deposited altogether Rs. 1,71,600/- in the different accounts on various dates. Later on, the Informant realized that he has become a victim of cyber fraud.
4. During the course of investigation, 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. Petitioner is an accused 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/ Uploaded