2026:JHHC:14391 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3070 of 2026 Appu Kumar Das, son of Late Gokul Das @ Bhushan Das … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate --- 05/12th May 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 49/2024 [Cyber Case No. 38/2025] for the offence registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and Section 66(C), 66(D) of I.T. Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge Cyber Cases, Dhanbad. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on 12.02.2025 in B.A. No. 10386/2024 and subsequently, in B.A. No. 8228/2025, his prayer for bail was rejected on 31.10.2025 by observing that out of 12 charge-sheet witnesses, 4 were already examined and the learned trial court had reported that the trial was likely to be concluded within 6-7 months. The learned counsel submits that in spite of that, the trial has not been concluded and therefore the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail as the petitioner is in custody since 20.09.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the case was transferred to another court and in the meantime, the petitioner filed a petition asking the court to take fresh cognizance and that petition was rejected and ultimately, the trial court is now proceeding. He submits that there is direct allegation against the 2026:JHHC:14391 2 petitioner that the petitioner had cheated numerous persons on the ground of providing job and Rs. 18,00,000/- was recovered from the account of the petitioner. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it seems that there has been some delay in the trial on account of the fact that the case itself was transferred to another court. However, in view of the direct allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 5. Since the trial has now proceeded, there is no impediment in production of the remaining witnesses. 6. The State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses during trial. 7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 12.05.2026 Uploaded On: 13.05.2026 Mukul/-