( 2026:JHHC:18864 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4093 of 2026 Garniya Bharat Ramkubhai son of Garniya Surabhai … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Soniya Hansda, Advocate For the Opp. Party : None 07/29.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.08.2025 in connection with Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 88 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61 (2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 66B, 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II cum Special Judge, Cyber Crime, at Ranchi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner happens to be just a driver and she has referred to the confessional statement of the petitioner as recorded in the case diary and has submitted that the petitioner came in contact with one Hardik and at his instance and on account of poverty, the petitioner became greedy and hence ready to give the bank account details with respect to his bank account in IndusInd bank which is alleged to have been used in offence. The petitioner is in custody since 27.08.2025. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the case diary and counter affidavit it appears that the allegation against the petitioner is that Rs. 41 lacs out of defrauded amount were directly credited to the petitioner’s IndusInd bank account on 03.07.2025 out of total defrauded amount of Rs. 2,98,66,000/- from the informant’s bank accounts. The counter affidavit also reveals that as many as 5 cyber fraud complaints have been reported against the petitioner from different parts of the country, ( 2026:JHHC:18864 ) 2 whose details has been mentioned in the counter affidavit. In view of the fact that the amount has been credited in the bank account of the petitioner and several complaints relating to cyber fraud have been lodged against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is hereby rejected. 6. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 29.06.2026 Uploaded on: 01.07.2026 Binit/