2026:JHHC:17499 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4587 of 2026 ------ Nitai Dan, aged about 23 years, son of Sunil Dan, resident of village Bistopur, P.O and P.S-Narayanpur, District-Jamtara ….Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..............Opposite Party ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, APP Order No.02/ Dated:17th June, 2026 1. The instant bail application under section 483 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S Case No.71/2025 corresponding to Cyber Case No.16/2026 registered for the offence under Sections 111(2)(b), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5) of B.N.S, 2023; sections 66(B)(C)(D) of I.T. Act and Section 42(3)(e) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge Cyber Crime, Jamtara. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that prayer for bail of the present petitioner has been rejected on the earlier occasion vide order dated 25.02.2026 passed in B.A No.598 of 2026 by this Court, but subsequent thereto the investigation has already been completed and the charge has already been framed. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.12.2025. 2026:JHHC:17499 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the present petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. While on the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned APP appearing for the State, however, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by stating that earlier the prayer for regular bail of the present petitioner has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.02.2026. 6. It has been submitted that this Court while rejecting the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has taken into consideration the culpability said to be committed by the petitioner and the recovery of large number of mobile phones from his possession for the purpose of forged transaction of money from several accounts. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 8. The fact about rejection of prayer for regular bail is available in Annexure-2 vide order dated 25.02.2026 passed in B.A No.598 of 2026. The one of the reasons for rejection for prayer for regular bail was ongoing investigation. The fact about the completion of investigation and framing of charge has been admitted by the learned State counsel which is based upon the documents as appended by the petitioner as Annexure- 3 and Annexure-4. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.12.2025. 9. This Court, taking into consideration the fact of completion of investigation and framing of charge, is of the view that the instant bail application deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed. 2026:JHHC:17499 3 11. In consequence thereof, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge Cyber Crime, Jamtara in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S Case No.71/2025 corresponding to Cyber Case No.16/2026, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause. Upon failure, it will be open to the State to make an application for cancellation of bail. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Dated:17.06.2026. Sudhir