2026:JHHC:7874 Page | 1 INTHE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 205 of 2026 --------- Ajay Rambharose Walmiki, aged about 35 years, son of Rambharose Walmiki, resident of Qr. No. 108, L.I.G.- 2, Amarawati Road, Mhada Colony, P.O. P.O. Deolameti, P.S. Wadi, Dist. Nagpur (Maharashtra) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP ---------- 03/Dated: 18th March, 2026 1. The instantapplication has been filed under Sections483 &484 ofBNSS, 2023 forgrant of bail in connection with Ranchi Cyber P.S. Case No 91 of 2025 registered under Sections 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 pending in the court of learned AJC, II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Ranchi. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that merely on the basis of the false allegation, the petitioner has been implicated in this present case. 3. It has been submitted that one co-accused, namely, Jayant Tarachand Annapurne has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 16.03.2026 passed in B.A. No.168 of 2026 by co- ordinate Bench of this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the petitioner of B.A. No.168 of 2026, namely, 2026:JHHC:7874 Page | 2 Jayant Tarachand Annapurne therefore, on the ground of parity the prayer for bail of the present applicant is fit to be allowed. 4. It has further been submitted that the confessional statement of the petitioner/applicant was taken by the police after applying coercion at the time of his arrest and as a matter of fact, he was confined in a faraway hotel Megh Residency, Wasi, Navi Mumbai from 23.07.2025 to 31.07.2025 by Manoj and his associate in the name of giving commission and they had misused his account. 5. Submission has also been made that the petitioner is having no criminal antecedents and he is languishing in judicial custody since 16.09.2025, as such, the present petitioner may also be enlarged on bail. 6. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the allegation against the petitioner/applicant is serious and he along with other co-accused cheated the informant in the name of trading, therefore the prayer for bail of the petitioner is not fit to be allowed. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the counter affidavit which has been filed by the state. 8. The foremost ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one co-accused, namely, Jayant Tarachand Annapurne has been directed to be released on bail vide order 2026:JHHC:7874 Page | 3 dated 16.03.2026 passed in B.A. No.168 of 2026 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the petitioner of B.A. No.168 of 2026, namely, Jayant Tarachand Annapurne therefore, on the ground of parity the prayer for bail of the present applicant is fit to be allowed. 9. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that this Court is conscious of the settled position of law that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case on fact is exactly similar then only the principle of parity in the matter of passing order is to be passed but if there is difference in between the facts then the principle of parity is not to be applied. But it is equally settled position of law that there cannot be any negative equality, meaning thereby, that if a co-accused person has been granted bail without consideration of the factual aspect or on the ground said to be not proper, then, merely because the co-accused person has been directed to be released on bail, the same will not attract the principle of parity on the principle that Article 14 envisages positive equality and not negative equality, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: "19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of 2026:JHHC:7874 Page | 4 individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision." 10. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only simple saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. 11. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court has gone through the order dated 16.03.2026 passed in B.A. No.168 of 2026 and has found that the Co-ordinate Bench while considering the prayer for bail of one of the co-accused namely Jayant Tarachand Annapurne has taken into consideration the allegation made against the said co-accused has allowed the prayer for bail of the said co-accused, for ready reference the operative part of the aforesaid order dated 16.03.2026 passed in B.A. No.168 of 2026 is being quoted as under: 5. Having regard to the allegation made against this petitioner, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is languishing in custody since 16.09.2025; I am inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the above-named 2026:JHHC:7874 Page | 5 Petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.J.C., II- cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Ranchi in connection with Ranchi Cyber P.S. Case No. 91 of 2025. 12. Thus, from the operative part of aforesaid order as quoted hereinabove it is evident that co-ordinate Bench of this Court while enlarging the said co-accused on bail has taken into consideration the allegation alleged against the said co-accused. 13. At this juncture, it requires to refer herein another settled position of law that Grant of bail though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and, thus, order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Therefore, prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case and, thus, serious nature of accusations and facts having a bearing in the case cannot be ignored. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 2022 SC 2514 has observed that the importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can never be undermined. There is prima facie need to indicate reasons particularly in cases of grant or denial of bail where the accused is charged with a serious offence. The sound reasoning in a particular case is a reassurance that discretion has been 2026:JHHC:7874 Page | 6 exercised by the decision maker after considering all the relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. 15. This Court is now going to the counter affidavit filed by the state in order to ascertain that whether the prayer for bail of the present petitioner/applicant is fit to be allowed or not. 16. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that from paragraph 12 of the Case Diary reveals that the beneficiary bank account mentioned in the FIR, being Account No. 922020004679287 of Axis Bank, was found to be registered in the name of Ezoby Online E-Store, and the registered mobile number linked with the said account was found to be 9765788214. It is further stated that upon further perusal and scrutiny of the said bank account, it was found that on 30.07.2025 an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- and on 31.07.2025 an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- were transferred through RTGS from the informant's bank account to the aforesaid account of the co-accused. 17. Further from paragraph 14 of the Case Diary reveals that the mobile number 9765788214, which is linked with beneficiary Account No. 922020004679287 of Axis Bank, was, during the course of investigation, found to be associated with the present petitioner, namely Ajay Rambharose Walmiki. It has further been revealed that an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- was transferred from the bank account of the informant to the account linked with the said mobile number. 2026:JHHC:7874 Page | 7 18. It has come in the counter affidavit that from paragraph 34 of the Case Diary reveals that a requisition was made to ICICI Bank seeking details of the bank account linked with mobile number 8766800354, which was found to be associated with the email ID of Ezoby Online E-Store, the registered owner of beneficiary Account No. 922020004679287 of Axis Bank. It is further stated that upon receipt of the said details and on perusal thereof, it was found that the aforesaid mobile number 8766800354 is linked with ICICI Bank Account No. 202701502515, which stands registered in the name of the petitioner, namely Ajay Rambharose Walmiki. Further from paragraph 93 of the Case Diary reveals that the confessional statement of the petitioner was recorded during the course of investigation, wherein he has admitted his involvement in the alleged offence. 19. It has come on record that the SIM card recovered from the possession of the petitioner was found to be linked with the beneficiary bank account, and the other mobile number also recovered from his possession was found to be linked with the email ID associated with the said beneficiary account. 20. Thus, from the aforesaid, prima-facie the culpability of the present applicant in the alleged commission of crime appears to be true therefore, taking into consideration the culpability of the petitioner this Court is of the considered view that present application is not fit to be allowed. 21. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected. 2026:JHHC:7874 Page | 8 22. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the case of the appellant in course of trial and view as expressed by this Court is only limited to the instant bail application. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 18th March, 2026 Samarth