( 2025:JHHC:35860 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10777 of 2025 ------ Prakash Mandal @ Prakash Kr. Mandal, aged about 26 years, son of Ramlal Mandal, resident of Village Kashitar, P.O. and P.S. Karmatar, District –Jamtara. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 28.11.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.09 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 111(2)(ii), 111(3), 111(4), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(2), 317(4) & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 66B, 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 28.04.2025 in B.A. No. 3260 of 2025 and vide order dated 22.08.2025 in B.A. No. 7759 of 2025. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fresh ground is that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period of time and charge has been framed against the petitioner. It is next submitted that some of the co-accused persons have already been admitted to bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that merely because charge has been framed and the petitioner has been in custody for some more time after rejection of his earlier bail application, the same is not a ground to consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner more so when there is serious allegation against the petitioner that he has obtained SIM Cards of mobile phones on the basis of forged document of identity in the name of different persons and made forged transactions in several accounts illegally as well as his criminal antecedent. It is next submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. It is further submitted that the case of the co- accused persons who have been admitted to bail stands on a different footing. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 28.04.2025 in B.A. No. 3260 of 2025. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 28.11.2025 Sonu/Gunjan-