[2026:JHHC:20303] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3783 of 2026 Mithu Modak, aged about 37 years, Wife of Tapan Modak Resident of Alakdiha Basti, Post-Tisra Thana- Tisra, Baliapur, Pargha, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Malsi Pathak, A.P.P. ------ 06/ 09.07.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 318 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3) and 338 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66 (C), 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner is not involved in the cyber-crime. He next submits that it has been falsely alleged that Rs. 49,995/- has been transferred in the account of this petitioner from the account of the informant. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that in para-14 of the case diary, it has come that Rs. 49,995/- has been transferred from the account of the informant into the account of this petitioner and that has also been found mentioned in the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge. On [2026:JHHC:20303] -2- these grounds, she submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In the order of the learned Sessions Judge, it has been found mentioned that the informant has received a Whatsapp call from an unknown person impersonating himself as an Axis Bank official and was induced to download an APK file and when the said file was downloaded by the informant, the mischief has been done by way of withdrawing Rs. 5,00,007/- from his account and further in para-14 of the case diary, it has come that Rs. 49,995/- has been transferred from the account of the informant into the account of this petitioner. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, above named. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-09.07.2026 Amitesh/-