2026:JHHC:14814 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3190 of 2026 1. Ibrahim Ansari @ Padu, aged about 19 years, Son of Kamruddin Ansari. 2. Siraj Ansari, aged about 28 years, Son of Sahid Mian … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. P.P. --- 04/14.05.2026 1. Learned counsel for the parties is present. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Opposite party sworn by Mr. Chandra Mani Bharti, at present posted as Inspector of Police at Cyber Crime, P.S. & District Jamtara and his affidavit has been filed incompliance of order dated 06.05.2026 wherein a direction was issued to file an explanation as to why erroneous case diary has been submitted in the Court/Prosecution Officer. 3. The officer is present in the Court and the learned counsel for the State while placing the explanation has submitted that the contents of the case diary was dictated to the stenographer/typist and the uncorrected copy also remained in the file and the uncorrected copy has been forwarded to the learned Special P.P. before this Court and on account of such mistake, the uncorrected copy was found with the Special P.P. The officer has prayed for unqualified apology and has undertaken that such mistake shall not recur in future. 4. This fact having come to light, a show cause seeking explanation from the aforesaid officer has also been issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jamtara and it is submitted that an explanation has also been furnished. However, no order has been passed on the explanation. 2026:JHHC:14814 2 5. From the perusal of the case diary as received from the concerned court and also the case diary which has been furnished to this Court, it appears that they are one and the same. It is only the case diary which has been forwarded to the Special P.P. which is not matching with the case diary which has been received by this Court. However, the fact remains that the paragraphs which are not matching are relating to the numerous cases instituted against one Siraj Ansari and Hussain Ansari. The case diary which has been received by the Special P.P. reveals that the names of the accused in various aforesaid paragraphs, right from paragraph 57 to 63, has been changed and name of a third person has been introduced therein, who is not an accused in this case. It is very surprising that except the name of the accused, all other particulars are matching in paragraph 57 to 63. 6. The bail application of Hussain Ansari and Siraj Ansari are also placed before this court and if the learned Special P.P. would have argued the case on the basis of the case diary received by him, the accused would have got advantage as one of the considerations for bail could be identification of victims in cyber offence. In numerous cases where the victims have not been identified, this Court has directed the concerned petitioners to be released on bail. 7. However, this Court is not inclined to pronounce any further in view of the fact that a show cause has already been issued to the officer namely Mr. Chandra Mani Bharti and it is for the Superintendent of Police and/or the appropriate authority to take steps as per law. 8. Personal appearance of the investigating officer, namely, Mr. Chandra Mani Bharti is dispensed with. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties on the merits of the bail application. 10. In this case, there are two petitioners namely 1. Ibrahim Ansari @ Padu and 2. Siraj Ansari. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are in custody since 10.02.2026 in connection with Jamtara 2026:JHHC:14814 3 Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 09 of 2026, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 111(1)(iii), 318(4), 319(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 66(B), (C), (D) of I.T. Act and 42(3)(e) of Telecommunication Act pending in the court of learned Special Judge Cyber Crime, Jamtara. 12. So far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, he has no criminal antecedent and charge sheet has been submitted, but charge has not been framed. He further submits that no victim has been identified. Two mobile phones and two SIM cards have been recovered from his possession in which one mobile and one SIM card was standing in the name of another person. 13. In response to this submission, the learned counsel Spl. P.P. has referred to the counter affidavit and has submitted that in connection with the FIR altogether 38 FIRs have been instituted at various locations. Learned Spl. P.P. also submits that with respect to the one mobile and one SIM card standing in the name of other persons, no explanation has been furnished by the petitioner no.1 and crime links have been found. 14. With respect to Petitioner No.2, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that two mobiles and two SIM cards have been recovered from his possession and only one mobile and one SIM card was in the name of another person and petitioner No.2 has no criminal antecedent. The charge sheet has been submitted, but charge has not been framed. He has further submitted that no victim has been identified. 15. Learned counsel for the Spl. P.P. has submitted that both the SIM and mobiles stand in the name of another person to which the petitioner No.2 had no explanation and there are four victims, as is apparent from the case diary which has been received from the court below, and also which has been submitted before this Court and there are altogether 38 FIRs shown to have been registered in the portal. However, the concerned pages are different in the case diary received by him which is admittedly not the correct one. 2026:JHHC:14814 4 16. Learned Spl. P.P. has also submitted that both the aforesaid petitioners were apprehended on the spot. 17. To this, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is not clear from the counter affidavit as to out of 38 FIRs against whom one or the other FIR has been registered. 18. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and numerous FIRs shown to have recorded in the portal and the petitioners have been apprehended on the spot with mobile and SIM, which is not standing in their name to which they have no explanation and crime links having been found and with respect to Siraj Ansari even the victims have been identified and the investigation is still going on, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 19. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected. 20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 14.05.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-16.05.2026