2026:JHHC:25507 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4077 of 2026 Tinku Rawani (Aged about 30 years) s/o Ramdev Rawani village – Nawadih, P.O. Bishungarah, P.S. Bishungarah District – Hazaribagh Jharkhanda … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, APP --- 10/24.08.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.01.2026 in connection with Bishugarh P.S. Case No.01of 2026, registered under Sections 319(2)/ 318(4)/ 316(2)/ 61(2) of BNS and Section 66C/66D/67 of IT Act, now pending in the court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that although a number of articles were allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner and it was submitted on 14.07.2026 on behalf of the petitioner that all the seized articles stood in his name, but the counter- affidavit filed during the proceedings reveals that only some of the seized articles stand in the name of the petitioner or his wife. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that co-accused persons namely Kundan Kumar and Indradev Rawani in B.A. No. 2704 of 2026, as well as Suraj Kumar in B.A. No. 2749 of 2026, have been enlarged on bail by this Court, whereas the bail application of Sumit Kumar Verma was rejected. 5. The learned counsel submits that there was a victim connecting Sumit Kumar Verma, and therefore, his bail application was rejected. 6. The learned counsel for the State submits that as per the supplementary affidavit, altogether 14 articles were recovered from 2026:JHHC:25507 2 the possession of the petitioner, including mobile phones, SIM cards, ATM cards and airtel payment bank card. It is submitted that most of these articles stand in the names of other persons, regarding which the petitioner has no explanation. 7. The learned counsel further submits that 4 mobile phones with various Sim cards and 11 debit/credit cards were seized from the possession of the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel submits that the submissions made by the petitioner on 14.07.2026 was not correct. 9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusing the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner is alleged to be running a well-organized online fraud racket by operating websites offering escort services in the area and demanding payments through Fino Payments Bank, NSDL Payments Bank, and Google Pay. The case diary further reveals that investigation regarding the articles seized from the petitioner is still going on, and admittedly, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner on 14.07.2026 was incorrect. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. 11. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after 6 months and which would be subject to the consideration if any victim or crime link is identified with respect to the materials seized from the possession of the petitioner. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:24.08.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:29.08.2026