2026: JHHC:20759 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3887 of 2026 Anup Kumar Das, son of Jamun Mahra … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P. --- 06/14.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2026, registered under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) and 84(C) of Information Technology Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum- Special Judge, Cyber Crime Cases, Deoghar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is alleged that two mobiles and one SIM card have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and further, during investigation, three victims could be identified. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.01.2026. 4. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been mentioned that altogether 1448 complaints have been found and under the FIR column, the total number has been mentioned as ‘37’. However, in the report, it has been mentioned that the report is intended solely for intelligence purposes and should not be used as evidence or court trials. It has also been mentioned therein that emphasis may be laid down on resolving cases/complaints with direct and IMEI linkages. The State is trying to project as if these figures are not to be utilized for the purposes of trial or otherwise. 5. However, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that 2026: JHHC:20759 2 investigation is still going on. 6. The case-diary reveals that there are numerous crime links in numerous other states connecting the petitioner with the mobile/SIM card recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner does not have any explanation with respect to the Mobiles/SIM which have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, but are standing in the name of other persons. 7. In view of the numerous crime links and complaints having been registered in different States and in view of the fact that investigation is still going on, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:14.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:14.07.2026