( 2026:JHHC:28846 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5255 of 2026 ------ Sonu Mandal @ Sonu Kumar, aged about 28 years, S/o Shambhu Mandal, Resident of Village-Sarbindha, P.O.-Bara Banghi, P.S.- Godda (Muffasil), District-Godda. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Kabisha Goenka, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 24-09-2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Poraiyahat P.S. Case No.124 of 2025 registered under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and under Section 66 B, 66 C & 66 D of IT Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in commission of cyber-crime and on seeing the police party, the petitioner fled away. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the co-accused Ajay Kumar was apprehended by the police and police also seized one motorcycle and a scooter and from the mobile phone of the arrested accused persons, it was found from the recording of the calls made from the mobile phone that the petitioner and the co-accused persons were committing cyber-crime and the co-accused disclosed that the petitioner ran away on seeing the police party with his mobile phone. It is then submitted that the petitioner also used to commit cyber fraud by cheating people and making them transfer money to someone else’s account. It is also submitted that besides this case, the petitioner also involved in another case as has been mentioned in para-17 of this anticipatory bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submit that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is involved in commission of cyber-crime, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case and to recover the mobile phone which he used to commit cyber-crime. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner, the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case as well as his criminal antecedent, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 24/09/2026 Abhiraj/