( 2026:JHHC:11456 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1911 of 2026 Tajaul Ansari, aged about 21 years, son of Ayub Ansari, resident of village Bankudih, P.O& P.S Narayanpur, District Jamtara … … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand and Ors. … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. PP --- 04/20.04.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025 registered under Section 111(2)(b), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) 3(5) of the B.N.S, 2023 & Section 66(B), (C),(D) of the I.T Act and 42 (3) (e) of Telecommunication Act, 2023 now pending in the court of the Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Jamtara, pending in the court of learned Special Judge Cyber Crime, Jamtara. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been wrongly made an accused in this case and though the petitioner has one criminal antecedent of similar nature but he has not been convicted in the same case and was granted regular bail in that case. He has one more criminal antecedent in which he has been granted anticipatory bail. He has submitted that in the present case no victim has been identified and two mobiles and three SIM cards have been recovered which do not stand in the name of the petitioner as alleged. 4. He has submitted that two co-accused namely Sabbir Ansari and Taslim Raja have been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate bench in B.A No. 1539 of 2026 and B.A. No. 1261 of 2026 respectively, and through the same impugned order the bail application of all the persons have been rejected. He further submitted that Taslim Raja had four victim connected to the alleged offence. ( 2026:JHHC:11456 ) 2 5. From the perusal of the bail application of Taslim Raja in B.A. No. 1261 of 2026, it appears that a submission was made that he was falsely implicated and there was no victim in connection with the case so far. In the case of Sabbir Raja, it was submitted that he had no criminal antecedent and no victim was identified. The case of the petitioner appears to be different. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedent of similar nature and there are two victims and mobile and SIM cards standing in the name of other persons have been recovered, for which the petitioner has no explanation. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact the petitioner has criminal antecedents and mobile and SIM cards have been recovered for which the petitioner has no explanation and victims have also been identified, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:20.04.2026 Abha Date of Uploading:22.04.2026