Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2076 (JHR)

SAJAN MAHRA ALIAS SAJAN MEHRA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./1344/2026 · 2026-03-10

Sri Ananda Sen

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:6378 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.1344 of 2026 ----- Sajan Mahra @ Sajan Mehra, son of Ramdeo Mahra, resident of Village Dudhwajori, P.O. + P.S. Sarath (O.P. Pathadda), District Deoghar. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ----- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ----- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ----- 02/ 10.03.2026 This Bail Application under Section 483 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been filed to release the petitioner on regular bail in connection with Cyber Crime, Deoghar, P.S. Case No.171 of 2025, for offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 66B, 66C, 66D and 84 c of the I.T. Act. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Cyber Crime, Special Court, Deoghar. 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State. Perused the material available on record and also gone through the impugned order. 3. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for bail. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his accomplices, by posing as Phone Pay Customer Care Officers, which they are not, deceived common people online by luring them with the promise of lottery and getting their loans approved. 2026:JHHC:6378 2 5. From the F.I.R. and the impugned order, it is clear that this petitioner who is a named accused, was one of the accomplices, in carrying out the incident of cybercrime. Further, there is recovery of incriminating articles including mobile phones and SIM card, from the possession of this petitioner, through which series of calls have been made. 6. Considering the aforesaid allegation, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this Bail Application is dismissed. 8. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of the charge. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 10th March, 2026 Prashant. Cp-3 Uploaded on 13.03.2026