2025:JHHC:13595 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2663 of 2025 ------ Shibam Sundaram Sahoo, son of Kalipada Sahoo, presently residing at Village Saharda, P.O. Erenda, P.S. Egra, District Purba Medinipur, 721429, West Bengal. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P. ----- 06/ 05.05.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Palamu Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.12 of 2023, for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC and Section 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Palamau. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party – State. 4. As per the FIR, on 13.10.2023, the informant sought assistance regarding his parcel from Flipkart Customer Care number on Google and contacted a WhatsApp number (1169278499). He was advised to speak with a senior, after which he received a call from another number (7864891254). The caller informed him that his payment had not been received and instructed him to make a payment. Before doing so, he was asked to download an app named ‘Complain Register’ and subsequently, ‘Anydesk’. After downloading ‘Anydesk’ and receiving an OTP, the informant lost access to his bank account. On 14.10.2023, upon checking his account, the informant discovered a shortage of ₹23,90,000. Realizing that he had been defrauded. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was also the victim of cyber fraud. He further 2025:JHHC:13595 2 submits that the petitioner was approached by one Ranjit Maity, who is now identified as the prime accused. He further submits that the main accused (Ranjit Maity) approached this petitioner and convinced him to open Bank accounts to avail loan facility and the same Bank accounts had been used for fraudulent transactions. Thus, on these grounds, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Opportunity was granted to the State to oppose the anticipatory bail, which the State availed and opposed. 7. From the impugned order, I find that though the petitioner has not been named in the FIR, but during the course of investigation it has come that the informant as well as few witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. The impugned order further suggests that Rs.23,90,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the informant and this petitioner has role to play in the offence. Thus this case needs custodial investigation. 8. Considering the nature of allegations and also the fact that there was siphoning of huge amount from the account of the informant, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-3