2026:JHHC:4319 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11234 of 2025 ------ Shashi Shekhar Kumar, son of Anadi Singh, resident of Village Dhankara, P.O. & P.S. Warsiliganj, District Nawada, Bihar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Party With B.A. No. 11335 of 2025 ------ Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Kr., son of Ajay Sharma @ Ajay Kumar, resident of Koderma Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, District Koderma, permanent address, Ajay Kumar, son of Shree Ramdhani Mistry, resident of Village Sherpur, P.O. Sherpur, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada, Bihar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate (In B.A. No. 11234 of 2025) Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate (In B.A. No. 11335 of 2025) For the State : Mr. Achinto Sent, A.P.P. (In both cases) For the Informant : Mr. Vishal Srivastava, Advocate (In both cases) ------ Order No.03 / Dated : 16.02.2026 Bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner- Shashi Shekhar Kumar and Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Kr., who are in custody since 20.09.2025 in connection with Marafari P.S. Case No. 54 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 1132 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, is pressed into motion. As per the FIR, informant of the case was defrauded Rs.3,87,999.99 by unique modus operandi of cybercrime, wherein her ATM card was made to get stuck in the ATM machine. When she was unable to get it back, she contacted to the help line number which was also forged and displayed in the ATM kiosk which suggested the informant to take help from the adjoining ATM centre. The moment, she left ATM centre, the amount was withdrawn and two days later, when she went there, she found her ATM card, but her Account had already been hacked by the use of the said ATM card. 2026:JHHC:4319 It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner- Shashi Shekhar Kumar that there is no legal evidence that the informant was in fact defrauded of any amount as the case diary is completely bereft of her bank statement from which it can be adduced that the fraud did take place. Although, she stated in her FIR that she had been defrauded on 22.06.2025, but the FIR has been lodged after three days on 25.06.2025. It has also come in the FIR that after her ATM card stuck, she transferred her amount from the said Account to another Accounts. There is no legal evidence against this petitioner, except for the confessional statement of the co-accused- Laxman Rajak, whose mobile number was in display in the ATM centre as help line number. He has no criminal antecedent of similar nature, but there is one criminal case against him of assault and another of the fraud. It is further submitted that there cannot be a transaction in the fraction of 0.99 by use of ATM unless OTP has been given. Provisions of Information Technology, has not been invoked and applied in the present case. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Kr. that he has no criminal antecedent and none have been put on TIP. Learned A.P.P. assisted by the learned counsel on behalf of the informant vehemently opposed the bail petition. It is submitted that it is not a normal crime, but an organized crime, where different persons joined hands to execute the offence. Laxman Rajak has admitted that he had taken the SIM which was used in the offence and had handed over it to Suraj Kumar and the said SIM was provided to this petitioner. It is submitted that the statement of the co-accused is relevant under Section 10 of the Evidence Act as anything said, done or written by the co-conspirator, can be used against the other co-conspirator. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit Uploaded 17.02.2026