AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The bail applications have been heard through video conferencing in which counsels for the petitioners as well as the court were well connected though learned counsel for the state Mr. Ravi Prakash, APP has also assisted this court through telephonic conversation which was also audible to all.
All the bail applications are arising out of the same FIR.
In B.A. No. 1740 of 2020, Mr. B.M.Tripathi, the learned senior counsel appeared for the petitioners and submitted that there are three categories of persons allegedly involved in the incident they are the land lord of the premises, the people running the call-center and the employees of the call-center. He has further submitted that there was a call-center or business establishment being run in a perfectly legitimate venture and the sections that are involved, the sections of Information Technology Act or the Indian Penal Code most of them are bailable in nature. He further submitted that most of the accused persons are young and they have already spent four months in custody and also the charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance of the offence has been taken but no one has come forward as aggrieved person or victim. On query about antecedents, he has referred to para 7 of his bail application.
Mr. R.S.Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel appeared in B.A. No. 1691 of 2020 and submitted that petitioner is only the owner of the place where the call-center was running and thus he cannot be said to be involved in the alleged incident. He has further submitted that as far as the antecedent is concerned, the petitioner is only a student leader and the sections involved in the previous cases are not pertaining to Information Technology Act but are mostly bailable in nature. He has further submitted that running a call-center is not illegal and therefore no offence is made out against the petitioner Saddam Hussain.
Mr. Soumitra Baroi, the learned counsel appeared in B.A. No. 1810 of 2020 and submitted that there is no victim in this case and also no American has been named as victim and the call-center was a registered one and that was carrying on legitimate business. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been submitted and the petitioners have already spent about four months in custody.
Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned APP has referred to the memos of evidences and submits that all the petitioners are named accused in the FIR and this crime has been operated in an organized manner by the petitioners. All the petitioners have been arrested at the place of occurrence and laptop and CPU have also been seized from the place of occurrence. Learned APP further submits that so far as petitioner, namely, Saddam Hussain is concerned, there is ample evidence against him. He has six criminal antecedents under Arms Act, under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and also under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard counsels for the parties, having gone through the records on hand and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioners, named above, on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.D.J.-II-cum-Spl. Judge, ACB, (Cyber Cases and Electricity Act), Dhanbad, in connection with Dhanbad (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 23 of 2019 and Cyber Case No. 148 of 2019 corresponding to Dhanbad (Sadar) Cyber Case No. 09 of 2019.
The petitioners shall report to the Police Station having jurisdiction where they reside every fortnight on Saturday between 10-12 a.m. and they shall also attend each and every date during trial unless it is dispensed with by the learned court below.
However, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, namely, Saddam Hussain @ Bunty Ansari in B.A. No. 1691 of 2020 at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Saddam Hussain @ Bunty Ansari stands rejected.