The Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed that serious allegations of job scam–related fraud under the IPC and IT Act warrant denial of bail where a prompt trial is expected. The judgment maintains existing precedent, confirming that bail may be refused in economic offences with ongoing trial progress, serving as binding authority for similar cases involving fraud and cybercrime.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | B.A./8228/2025 of APPU KUMAR DAS Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010255442025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Rejected |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Jharkhand; reaffirmed approach in similar cases |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (IPC & Information Technology Act) |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a job recruitment fraud involving IPC and IT Act offences, in light of the nature of allegations and stage of trial. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court, considering the seriousness of the allegations—job-related fraud involving substantial monetary amounts and IT Act violations—held that bail should not be granted at this stage. As several prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the trial is expected to conclude within a reasonable period (6-7 months), enlargement on bail is unjustified. The nature of the allegations and ongoing trial progress were key determinants in the denial of bail. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Co-accused, including the petitioner, allegedly took ₹18,00,000 from the informant and others under false pretenses of providing employment. The petitioner is charged under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and 66(C), 66(D) IT Act. Four out of twelve prosecution witnesses have been examined, and the trial is progressing expeditiously. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts facing similar facts in economic offences and cybercrime cases |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that bail may be denied in serious economic fraud cases, even with partial trial completion, where the trial is moving towards early conclusion.
- The progress of the trial and the seriousness of the allegations are paramount in bail consideration for IPC and IT Act offences.
- Lawyers representing the accused in similar fraud cases must underscore either extraordinary circumstances or unreasonable trial delay for bail to be considered.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the serious nature of the allegations, with the petitioner and co-accused allegedly collecting ₹18,00,000 from the informant and others by promising jobs.
- Petitioner is charged under various IPC sections (406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B) relating to cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, as well as under sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT Act, 2000.
- Four of the twelve prosecution witnesses have already been examined, and the trial court reported a likely conclusion within 6–7 months.
- The court determined that, in light of the gravity of the offences and the ongoing, expeditiously progressing trial, there were insufficient grounds to grant bail at this stage.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
No specific arguments detailed in the judgment.
Respondent (State)
No specific arguments detailed in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner along with a co-accused allegedly took ₹18,00,000 from the informant and others on the pretext of providing jobs. An FIR was filed under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC, as well as sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. Four out of twelve prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is expected to conclude within 6–7 months.
Statutory Analysis
- The court considered offences under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 467/468/471 (forgery and using forged documents), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
- Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, relating to identity theft and cheating by impersonation using computer resources, were also invoked.
- No interpretation or reading down of statutes occurred; the order applied established provisions in the context of the bail application.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations are noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment reaffirms the established principle that seriousness of the offence and trial progress are key factors in considering bail for economic and cybercrime offences.