( 2026:JHHC:20275 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5384 of 2026 Raushan Kumar Sharma, son of Sudama Sharma … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Aman Kumar Rahul, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. --- 06/09.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.08.2025 in connection with Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 89 of 2025 corresponding to Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 36 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 66(B), 66(C), 66(D), of I.T. Act, pending in the court of learned AJC-II at Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 26.03.2026 in B.A. No. 1411 of 2026 on merit. However, he has renewed his prayer for bail as co- accused namely Nurej Ansari has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 11.03.2026 in B.A. No. 59 of 2026 which is prior to the bail order passed by this court. Subsequently, another co-accused namely Pran Ranjan Sinha @ Pran Ranjan and Jitendra Kumar Pappu have been enlarged on bail vide order dated 30.03.2026 passed in B.A. No. 2585 of 2026 and B.A. No. 11793 of 2025 respectively. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that earlier order of rejection reveals that the petitioner has as many as 10 cybercrime cases registered against him and one of the bank accounts through which fraud has been committed is in the name of the petitioner in which the transaction is more than Rs. 10,00,000/-. During the course of hearing, it is not in dispute that the bank account stands in the name of the petitioner. ( 2026:JHHC:20275 ) 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner and there are numerous crime links connected with the bank account of the petitioner, no fresh ground for bail is made out. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 09.07.2026 Uploaded on 10.07.2026 Binit/