BINOD KUMAR DAS @ VINOD KUMAR DAS v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./1869/2026 · 2026-04-01
Sri Ananda Sen
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2709 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2709 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:9333 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.1869 of 2026 ----- Binod Kumar Das @ Vinod Kumar Das, son of Shivlal Das, resident of Village Dhakdhaka, P.O. Padjori, P.S. Devipur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party -----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prathik, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the State
: Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. -----
03/ 01.04.2026
This Bail Application under Section 483 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been filed to release the petitioner on regular bail in connection with Cyber Crime Police Station, Deoghar P.S. Case No.175 of 2025, for offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66B, 66C, 66D and 84C of the Information Technology Act. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime Cases, Deoghar.
2.
Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State. Perused the material available on record and also gone through the impugned order.
3.
Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for bail.
4.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his accomplices, by posing as Phone Pay Customer Care Officers, which they are not, deceived common people by luring
2026:JHHC:9333 2
them online, with the promise of lottery and getting their loans approved.
5.
From the F.I.R. and the impugned order, it is clear that this petitioner is a named accused, who in cahoots with his accomplices, carried out the incident of cybercrime. Further, there is recovery of incriminating articles including mobile phones and SIM card, from the possession of this petitioner, through which series of calls have been made.
6.
Considering the aforesaid allegation, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
7.
Accordingly, this Bail Application is dismissed.
8.
However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after the charge is framed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
01st April, 2026 Prashant. Cp-3
Uploaded on 04.04.2026