2026:JHHC:26702 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5789 of 2026 Irafat Ansari, aged about 28 years, S/O -Mazruddin Ansari, R/O village - Pindari, P.O +P.S. -Sarath, District - Deoghar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate --- 08/3rd September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2025 in connection with Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case No. 159 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 111(2)(b), 111 (3), 111(4), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340 (2), 61(2) of BNS 2023 and Sections 66B, 66C, 66D and 84(C) of I.T. Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Cyber Crime, Special Court, Deoghar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2025 and charge has been framed on 15.04.2026. One Mobile Phone and two SIM Cards, standing in the name of third person, are alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent and one victim has been identified. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has one antecedent and 45 crime links have been found. The petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 4. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the co-accused, namely, Nurfaraj Ansari has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 1361 of 2026 vide order dated 13.05.2026. 2026:JHHC:26702 2 5. So far as the bail granted to Nurfaraj Ansari is concerned, he had no criminal antecedent and therefore the case of the petitioner stands on different footing. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the present case relates to organized crime, the petitioner has a criminal antecedent and numerous crime links have been found and the fact that one mobile phone and two SIM cards are alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, to which the petitioner has no explanation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 03.09.2026 Uploaded On: 03.09.2026 Mukul/-