--1-- Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:14520) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 590 of 2026 ---- Niranjan Kumar @ Munna Mandal @ Munna Kumar Mandal, aged about 36 years, son of Santosh Mandal, resident of village- Nodiya, P.O. Hariharpur, P.S.- Taljhari, Dist.- Dumka. .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. ---- 03/12.05.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Taljhari P.S. Case No.74 of 2020, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B)/34 of the I.P.C., Section 66 (C) (D) of the I.T. Act, pending in the Court of learned J.M., 1st Class, Dumka. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has nothing to do with the allegation of cyber crime. He next submits that the main accused is Anil Kumar Mandal from whose possession mobile phones, master card, Debit cards, Paytm cards, Card of Vananchal Gramin Bank etc. have been recovered. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. --2-- 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner in accompany with Anil Kumar Mandal used to impersonate themselves as customer care Officer of the Bank and thereafter, used to cheat the innocent customers. He also submits that the witnesses in paras- 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the case diary have supported the prosecution case. He also submits that petitioner does not cooperate in the investigation. 5. Considering that the allegations are there of impersonating the Bank Officer and used to cheat the innocent customers, the petitioner is the accomplice of Anil Kumar Mandal. The witnesses in paras- 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the case diary have supported the prosecution case. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 12.05.2026 Jay/