2026:JHHC:18527 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5416 of 2026 Pawan Gour, aged about 26 years, S/o Raju Gour … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Sahilesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate --- 03/24.06.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2025 in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No 109 of 2025 (Cyber Case No 03 of 2026), for the alleged offence registered under sections 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of the BNS and under sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) of IT Act, pending in the court of learned, ACJ-II-Cum – Special Judge Cyber Crime, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the fact is that one Kritika Joshi approach the informant of the case, claiming herself to be an employee of one firm namely Fyers Securities, and asked the informant to invest money and consequently, when the informant agreed, a DMAT account was opened at her instance in which the informant and his family members deposited certain amount to the tune of Rs.3.5 crores. He has also submitted that when the informant wanted to withdraw the amount, the informant was asked that the commission is required to be paid first and when the informant refused to pay the commission, prior to redeeming the amount, the informant found that in the DMAT account the balance was showing ‘0’ and the entire money which has been invested through the DMAT account came to ‘0’. 2026:JHHC:18527 2 4. He has also submitted that Kritika Joshi and others had instructed the informant to invest the certain money in H. S. Construction and in that company the informant invested an amount of Rs. 35 lacs. It is also submitted that the petitioner is one of the partners of the said H. S. Construction company and another partner is Mr. Nilesh Daheriya. 5. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is a vegetable seller and he has been falsely shown as a partner in the said company. However, the account of H. S. Construction is in the name of company in which the petitioner is shown as one of the partners. He has also submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted on 07.01.2026. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has referred to paragraph 35 of the case diary and has submitted that the Central Bank Account No. 5824260671 shows that the account holder is H. S. Construction and two persons are in the account one is Nilesh Daheriya and another is Pawan Gour (petitioner) and the crime link has been shown with the petitioner as well. There is fraud of an amount of Rs.78 lacs 40 thousand and odds which was transferred to the Central Bank Account from three other bank account. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials collected during investigation and the huge amount involved in this case and crime link has been found against the petitioner also, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. The instant bail application is hereby rejected. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 24.06.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-25.06.2026