2026:JHHC:10138 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1858 of 2026 Sant Suman @ Sant Suman Yadav, son of Mahadev Prasad Yadav … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sailendra Kumar Tiwari , Advocate --- 08/9th April 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Giridih Cyber P.S. Case No. 34/2025 for the offence registered under Section 319(2)/318(4)/338/336(3)/340(2) of the BNS and Sections 66(B)/66(C)/66(D) of the Information Technology Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody since 22.09.2025 having no criminal antecedent. He has further submitted that the informant of the case was facing some problem while in Tamilnadu relating to conducting transactions of Rs. 23 Lakhs which he had won in Dream-11 and the petitioner was called to help him. He submits that thereafter the petitioner helped the informant and there were numerous transactions in connection with said amount, but none of the amount was transferred in the bank account of the petitioner or his relatives. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that as per the records, the petitioner had ported the SIM of the 2026:JHHC:10138 2 informant and thereafter used his mobile for various transactions. He submits that the aforesaid design, in which the crime has been committed, clearly demonstrates the complicity of the petitioner and Rs. 23 Lakhs of the informant has been siphoned off. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been committed and the fact that alleged fraud relating to huge amount is involved in the present case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 5. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 09.04.2026 Uploaded On: 09.04.2026 Mukul/-