2026:JHHC:21921 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5869 of 2026 Santosh Kumar Das, Son of Late Nageshwar Das … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate --- 04/24th July 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 71 of 2023 for the offence registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC read with Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) & 84(C) of IT Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II- cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime Cases, Deoghar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one mobile and two SIM cards are alleged to have been recovered from the beneath of bed of the petitioner. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and no criminal link has been found. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the recovered mobile phone and SIM cards do not stand in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner has no explanation for such possession. It has come during investigation that the said mobile phone and SIM cards were used for making numerous calls and few of the persons could be contacted, who stated that they have received the call and an attempt was made to commit cyber fraud. The learned counsel submits that the case is of the year 2023 and the petitioner was declared absconder. However, he was arrested on 19.05.2026. He submits that the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 2026:JHHC:21921 2 4. To which, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was set-aside by this Court and anticipatory bail of the petitioner was pending, although the recovery was from the house of the petitioner. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid materials collected against the petitioner during investigation and the petitioner has no explanation for the possession of the Mobile and the SIM cards and that the petitioner has avoided arrest for more than two years, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 6. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after expiry of three months from today. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 24.07.2026 Uploaded On: 25.07.2026 Mukul/-