Mohammad Arif Ali Alias Md Arif Ali vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the serious allegations against the petitioner and the existence of sufficient materials indicating his involvement in the alleged offence. The reasoning was based on the fact that a portion of the amount defrauded from the informant was deposited into the petitioner's bank account, a fact not denied by the petitioner. The Court found these circumstances to be significant enough to warrant custodial interrogation and therefore, did not feel inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the learned court below and seek regular bail, with a further direction to the lower court to consider the bail application on its own merits without being prejudiced by the order of the High Court.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammad Arif Ali @ Md. Arif Ali, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 405 of 2018, registered under Sections 419, 420, 379, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that the informant was duped and cheated of a sum of Rs. 3,49,523/- by miscreants who promised a prize of a Tata Safari. The informant was induced to deposit GST and other amounts into an account suggested by the callers. During the investigation, it was revealed that a portion of this amount was deposited into the petitioner's bank account. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating he was unaware of the deposited funds and had not encashed them, and offered to deposit Rs. 80,000/- towards restitution, which was not accepted by the informant.

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 cheating and misappropriation and the deposit of funds into his bank account. The petitioner argued that he is innocent, falsely implicated, and nothing was recovered from his possession. He claimed ignorance of the funds deposited in his account and stated he had no criminal antecedents. He also undertook to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any bail conditions. The State, through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the prayer, highlighting the serious allegations of duping the informant of Rs. 3,49,523/- through a lottery scam involving GST payments and the fact that a portion of the ill-gotten money was deposited into the petitioner's bank account, which the petitioner had not denied.