2025:JHHC:13866 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5868 of 2024 ----- Amit Kumar Bharti, S/o Anil Kumar Das, R/o Vill- Badhankund, P.O.+P.S.- Sarath, Dist- Deoghar .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). WITH A.B.A. No. 6530 of 2024 ----- Jeevlal Mahra, S/o Ravi Mahra, R/o Vill- Sarhata, P.O.+P.S.- Madhupur, Dist- Deoghar .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, AddI. P.P. Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, AddI. P.P. …...... 09/ 08.05.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for the offences registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act in connection with Dumka (T) P.S. Case No.25 of 2024, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka. 3. The prosecution case, as per the F.I.R. pertains to a cybercrime incident, wherein the informant, a police officer, received confidential information on 08.02.2023 about certain individuals engaging in cyber offences near National School, Mahuadangal. Acting on tip-off, a raiding team was formed. Using tower location data, the team reached the specified location. Upon knocking at the door, an individual named Suman Kumar opened the same. A search was conducted in his presence, during which three mobile phones and one tablet were recovered. A seizure list was prepared in the presence of witnesses. During interrogation, Suman Kumar revealed that the recovered mobile devices belonged to Amit Kumar Bharti and Jeevlal Mahra. Consequently, a case was registered, and the investigation commenced. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused. He further submits that the petitioners were not even present at the place of occurrence. He further submits that from the contents of the FIR no offence is made out against the petitioners under the alleged Sections. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. 6. From the case diary it has come during the course of investigation that the other co-accused has taken the name of these two petitioners and have also confessed their involvement in the cyber-crime. It has further been disclosed that these petitioners are also involved in committing cyber-crime with the apprehended accused. In view of the aforesaid fact, I find that this case needs further investigation including custodial interrogation. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, these Anticipatory Bail Applications stand dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./