ROHIT JAIN ALIAS ROHIT KUMAR JAIN v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./6127/2026 · 2026-07-29
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 22402 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 22402 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:22478
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 6127 of 2026
Rohit Jain alias Rohit Kumar Jain, son of Sajjan Kumar Jain
… … Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party ---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
: Ms. Kaushiki, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P.
---
06/29.07.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Rejoinder to the counter-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner during the court proceedings, which is taken on record.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.03.2026 in connection with Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 24 of 2026, registered under Sections 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 66B, 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, now pending in the court of learned AJC-II cum Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Ranchi.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case although the proceeds of crime to the extent of Rs. 30 lakhs is alleged to have been routed through the bank account of the petitioner.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon own confessional statement of the petitioner as recorded by the police and submitted that the petitioner had gone with Sanjeev Mishra to Kolkata where all his documents etc. relating to the bank account were taken by the co-accused Zeeshan and thereafter, Sanjeev Mishra also asked the petitioner to download the APK file which the petitioner installed. The petitioner was told that he will be granted 3% commission with respect to the transaction which takes place through him. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has fallen victim to the entire transaction and he is not the beneficiary.
6. During the course of arguments, it transpired that on 19.02.2026,
2026:JHHC:22478
2
Rs. 30 lakhs and odd was credited in the bank account of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that on the same day, within a few minutes, the entire amount was debited. However, the FIR was lodged on 27.02.2026, but the petitioner did not take any steps to inform this huge transaction in his account to the police.
7.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted and co-accused namely, Sanjeev Kr. Mishra has been enlarged on bail. He submits that at the time of hearing of bail application of co-accused Sanjeev Kr. Mishra, it was submitted on behalf of the said petitioner that the transaction had taken place in the account of the present petitioner.
8.
Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the proceeds of cybercrime have been routed through the bank account of the petitioner which is to the extent of Rs. 30 lakhs which was transferred in his account from the account of the informant of the case.
9. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that the petitioner has two crime links and one criminal antecedent. The other criminal case has been lodged in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
10.
Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that at the time of incident, all the accused namely, Sanjeev Kr. Mishra, Zeeshan and the present petitioner were staying in the same hotel and they were continuously in touch with each other.
11. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the proceeds of cybercrime to the extent of Rs. 30 lakhs has been routed through bank account of the petitioner which is said to have taken place on 19.02.2026 and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.
12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:29.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:31.07.2026