2026:JHHC:15040 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3694 of 2026 Pankaj Kumar, son of Ram Nath Das … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. PP --- 05/15.05.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.06.2024 in connection with Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.145 of 2024, and corresponding to Cyber Case No.21 of 2024, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 66B, 66 C , 66 D of the IT Act, now pending in the court of learned AJC – II – cum – Special Judge, Cyber Crimes, Ranchi. 3. The order sheet from the concerned court has been received which reveals that after the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on 24.02.2025, no witness has been examined. It further appears that the charge was framed on 07.10.2024 and the learned APP was directed to adduce evidence on the next date, and on repeated occasions, not even single witness was produced and the petitioner is in custody since 28.06.2024. 4. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed, but there is no explanation with regard to non- production of witnesses. However, he has submitted that as per the counter affidavit, the petitioner is engaged in large scale cyber fraud and the phone through which the cyber fraud was committed is related to his bank account. Numerous cases of cyber fraud have been reported and the petitioner in his confessional statement has also stated that transactions amounting to Rs.4,80,00,000/- took place in HDFC bank account of Dikshup Enterprises, of which the petitioner is a proprietor. It has been further stated in counter affidavit that as many as 12 F.I.Rs have been registered from different locations, out of which 2 cases are from Ranchi. 2026:JHHC:15040 2 5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the 2nd case from Ranchi is concerned, he has stated that he has criminal antecedent, but so far as the other cases registered in different locations in different states, the petitioner has not been remanded in those cases so far. It has been also stated in the counter affidavit that in the account of the petitioner, 93 cyber fraud complaints have been registered and out of 93 complaints, 12 formal F.I.Rs have been registered. 6. However, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the next date in the trial is 20.05.2026 and the deposition of the witnesses will be recorded without any further delay. He has further submitted that as per the charge-sheet, there are only 4 witnesses. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that there is no proper explanation from the side of the State as to why in such a serious case, the witnesses are not being produced and the petitioner is in custody without trial. 8. However, considering the serious nature of allegations against the petitioner dealing with large cyber fraud racket and the statement made in the counter affidavit showing readiness and willingness to produce the witnesses right from 20.05.2026, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, if the witnesses are not produced in spite of this order, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after 6 months. 9. The State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are produced without fail on every date as may be fixed by the court. 10. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:15.05.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:16.05.2026