2026:JHHC:29450 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8768 of 2026 Ibrahim Ansari @ Ibarhim @ Padu, aged about 19 years, Son of Kamruddin Ansari, resident of village Pandedih, P.O. & P.S. Ahilyapur, District Giridih, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate --- 04/30th September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 09 of 2026, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 111(i)(iii), 318(4), 319(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 66(B), (C), (D) of I.T. Act and Section 42(3)(e) of Telecommunication Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge Cyber Crime, Jamtara. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier in B.A. No. 3190 of 2026 vide order dated 14.05.2026 along with the co-accused, namely, Siraj Ansari, whose bail application was also rejected by the same order. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, inasmuch as, he has not been remanded in any of the cases, in which complaints/FIRs have been lodged. The petitioner is in custody since 10.02.2026, charge has been framed on 12.06.2026 and the next date in the trial is 08.10.2026. No victim has been identified and out of 12 witnesses, only one witness has been examined so far. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that every aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration after considering the case-diary etc. while rejecting the bail 2026:JHHC:29450 2 application of the petitioner on 14.05.2026. He submits that the trial is in progress, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 4. To which, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the co-accused, namely, Md. Husain and Sakir Ansari have been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 3876 of 2026 and B.A. No. 3428 of 2026 respectively, both vide order dated 16.06.2026. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits by a detailed order indicating that 38 FIRs have been lodged at various locations, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence the bail application of the petitioner is rejected. 6. The trial has already commenced. 7. The State is directed to ensure prompt production of the 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: 30.09.2026 Uploaded On: 30.09.2026 Mukul/-