( 2026:JHHC:29765 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8356 of 2026 Surendra Kumar Mandal age about 27 years, son of Late Mahabir Mandal, Resident of village-Jurpaniya P.O. and P.S. Bengabad, District-Giridih … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. --- 06/05.10.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Giridih (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 19 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 111(2) (ii)/ 111(3)/ 111(4)/317(5)/319(2)/318(4)/338/336(3)/340(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Cum Special Judge (Cyber), Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that three mobiles with three SIM Cards are alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The SIM Cards are issued in the name of other persons but the mobile belongs to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.06.2026 and charge sheet has been submitted on 27.08.2026. The petitioner has a criminal antecedent of the year 2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 279/337/338 of IPC. The learned counsel has further submitted that no victim has been identified. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has referred to various paragraphs of the case diary and has submitted that various screen shots have been mentioned in the case diary which indicates involvement of the petitioner with cyber offences. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner cannot account for the SIM Cards which has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner which are standing in the name ( 2026:JHHC:29765 ) 2 of other persons and utilized for the purposes of committing cyber offence and the petitioner also has a criminal antecedent. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegations against the petitioner relating to organized crime and the material collected during investigation and also the fact that further investigation is still going on although charge sheet has been submitted so far as petitioner is concerned, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months. 7. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 05.10.2026 Uploaded on 06.10.2026 Binit/