2026:JHHC:28487 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8632 of 2026 Bimal Kumar Das @ Bimal Das, aged about 26 years, S/O - Late Bablu Das, R/O Village -Sonatar, P.O +P.S. - Chitra, 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. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Advocate --- 05/21st September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case No. 121 of 2025 (Cyber Crime Case No. 151/25), registered under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66B, 66C, 66D and 84(C) of Information Technology Act, now 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 the bail applications of the petitioner were rejected twice earlier by this Court in B.A. No. 11669/2025 on 08.04.2026 and B.A. No. 6137/2026 on 10.07.2026. The petitioner is in custody since 30.08.2025 and therefore considering the period of custody of the petitioner, he may be enlarged on bail. 3. Upon a query by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of eleven charge-sheet witnesses, only four have been examined so far. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that it is a case of organized crime and the petitioner has also criminal antecedents, which were the grounds for rejection of his earlier bail applications. 2026:JHHC:28487 2 5. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the bail application of the co-accused, namely, Gourav Kumar Das was rejected earlier by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 11438/2025 vide order dated 19.02.2026 and when he renewed his prayer for bail, his bail application was also rejected in B.A. No. 4165/2026 vide order dated 03.07.2026 with a direction that the trial should be concluded within six months. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and considering the fact that the bail applications of the present petitioner were rejected twice earlier on merits and in the case of co-accused, there is a direction to conclude the trial within six months, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the remaining witnesses before the learned court. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 21.09.2026 Uploaded On: 23.09.2026 Mukul/-