Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12343 (JHR)

SUMAN KUMAR DAS v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./3770/2026 · 2026-05-15

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:15200 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3770 of 2026 Suman Kumar Das son of Dilip Das … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. PP. --- 03/15.05.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 28 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) and 84(C) of the Information and Technology Amendment Act, 2008, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Deoghar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two mobile and two SIM cards have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and two victims have identified and the petitioner is in custody since 21.02.2026 and charge sheet has already been submitted. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that 39 complaints of cyber fraud have been found in JMIS/14C portal against the mobile/SIMs found and seized from the possession of the petitioner and investigation is still going on. There is nothing in the case diary to indicate as to whether FIR has been lodged in connection with 39 complaints. He ( 2026:JHHC:15200 ) 2 submits that necessary investigation will be done as investigation is still going on . 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the numerous complaints lodged against the petitioner in the portal, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 15.05.2026 Uploaded on 16.05.2026 Binit/