Akash Sinha vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Akash Sinha, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Ranchi Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 174 of 2025. The case involves allegations of impersonation as a GST Customs Officer by one Ritesh Kumar, who defrauded the informant of Rs. 1,27,000/- by promising an auction of a Fortuner car for Rs. 12,70,000/-. The petitioner claims that his neighbor, Anup Kumar, provided the petitioner's account details, and the defrauded amount was credited to the petitioner's account on humanitarian grounds. The petitioner states he is willing to return the amount and has no prior criminal record. The State opposes the bail application, noting the amount was credited to the petitioner's account under Anup Kumar's direction.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court considered that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as disclosed in paragraph 14 of the petition. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner provided his account number on humanitarian grounds, and the amount of Rs. 1,27,000/- was credited to his account. The Court also took into account the petitioner's readiness to hand over the said amount to the informant and his attempt to refund the money, which was allegedly met with a demand for more by the informant. In light of these facts and circumstances, the Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the learned court within two weeks, and the learned court was instructed to release him on bail on terms and conditions and sureties as it deems fit and proper. The anticipatory bail application was disposed of accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the allegations of his involvement in a cybercrime involving impersonation and financial fraud. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that he provided his account details on humanitarian grounds and is ready to refund the Rs. 1,27,000/- credited to his account. He asserts he has no criminal antecedent and that the informant demanded more money when approached for refund. He seeks anticipatory bail based on these submissions and humanitarian considerations. Revenue/State's arguments: The State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, highlighting that the amount was credited to the petitioner's account pursuant to the direction of Anup Kumar, suggesting a degree of complicity or knowledge on the petitioner's part.