Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26321 (JHR)

SHARIF ARSARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./4509/2026 · 2026-09-11

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:27403 --1-- A.B.A. No. 4509 of 2026 with 4535 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4509 of 2026 ---- Sharif Arsari, son of Abdul Sattar, aged about 31 years, resident of village – Devatand, PO – Chotki Kharagdiha, PS – Bengabad, District - Giridih .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 4535 of 2026 ---- Naeem Ansari @ Md Naem, son of Kurban Ansari, aged about 35 years, resident of village – Bhaluwa, PO – Mandro, PS – Gandey, District - Giridih .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- A.B.A. No. 4509 of 2026 For the Petitioner :- Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate :- Mr. Mayank Mridul, Advocate :- Mr. Aditya Mazumdar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Advocate A.B.A. No. 4535 of 2026 For the Petitioner :- Mr. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Advocate ---- 02/11.09.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Giridih (Cyber) P.S. Case No.31 of 2023 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 413, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of 2026:JHHC:27403 --2-- A.B.A. No. 4509 of 2026 with 4535 of 2026 Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(B), 66(C) and 66(D) of I.T. Act, 2000 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II- cum-Special Judge (Cyber Crime), Giridih. 3. Both the petitions are arising out of the same FIR and in view of that both the petitions have been heard together with consent of the parties. 4. Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in ABA No.4509 of 2026 submits that the name of the petitioner has come in investigation which was being done on a complaint and apart from that there is nothing against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has received the notice under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. in May, 2026. He then submits that there is order of regular bail annexed with Annexure-2 series and those persons have been granted regular bail. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 5. Mr. Razaullah Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in ABA No.4535 of 2026 submits that the name of the petitioner has also come in the course of investigation. He further submits that although two mobile phones have been recovered from the house of the petitioner, however, that mobiles were not belonged to the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that these petitioners used to show themselves as bank 2026:JHHC:27403 --3-- A.B.A. No. 4509 of 2026 with 4535 of 2026 officials and taking OTP from the victims and used to withdraw the amount that has come in the case diary. He further submits that one complaint was received by the cyber police that the mobile which has been recovered from the house of the petitioner namely Naeem Ansari @ Md. Naem was also found to be involved in cyber- crime and the witnesses have taken the name of the petitioners. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 7. Considering that the name of the petitioners has come in cyber-crime and from the house of the petitioner in ABA No.4535 of 2026 two mobiles have been seized and that was not in the name of the said petitioner, however, the said mobile was used in the cyber- crime. In paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the case diary, it has come that the petitioners by showing themselves as bank officials used to take the OTP and make the cyber crime and other co-accused persons have been granted regular bail. 8. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 11.09.2026 Sangam/