2026:JHHC:5590 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.598 of 2026 ------ Nitai Dan, aged about 23 years, son of Sunil Dan, resident of vill- Bishtopur, P.O.-Kurta, P.S. Narayanpur, District-Jamtara, Jharkhand. …. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. ------ 02/Dated: 25.02.2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 and 484 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail, in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.71 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 111(2)(b), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, Section 66(B)(C)(D) of the I.T. Act and Section 42(3)(e) of the Telecommunication Act, 2023, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Jamtara. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that it is a case where the petitioner has falsely been implicated and has committed no offence as alleged in the first information report. 3. It has further been contended that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner to show his complicity in the present case. 4. It has been submitted that the complicity of the petitioner has been shown only on the basis of suspicion. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner, rather, the specific allegation is against the other co-accused persons. 5. Submission has also been made that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 03.12.2025 6. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the Opp. 2026:JHHC:5590 2 Party-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail. 7. It has been contended that by use of mobile phones and SIM Cards, he used to call different persons and by deceiving them, he obtained money from them by cheating on different score of threats. 8. It has further been contended by referring to some paragraphs of the order passed by the learned trial court that the mobile SIM Cards recovered from the possession of the petitioner are found to be issued in the name of the different persons as per CAF in which several e-wallets have been found to be created. 9. It has been submitted that the case is at the initial stage of investigation and huge numbers of mobile phones have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The mobile phones are alleged to be obtained on the basis of forged documents of identity in the name of different persons and allegation of forged transaction from several accounts alleged to have been made. 10. Learned A.P.P for the Opp. Party-State, based upon the aforesaid grounds, therefore, has submitted that it is not a case where the petitioner is to be released on bail. 11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the first information report. 12. This Court has considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties as also some paragraphs of the order rejecting bail of the present appellant passed by the learned trial Court that the mobile SIM Cards recovered from the possession of the petitioner are found to be issued in the name of the different persons as per CAF in which several e-wallets have been found to be created. 13. Further, the case is at the initial stage of investigation and huge numbers of mobile phones have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The mobile phones are alleged to 2026:JHHC:5590 3 be obtained on the basis of forged documents of identity in the name of different persons and allegation of forged transaction from several accounts alleged to have been made. 14. Further, this Court is of the view that the act of the present petitioner is rampant to the society and if the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, then, there will be probability that he may again involve in cyber-crime, which may cause huge financial loss to the people at large. 15. In view of nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner which is, accordingly, rejected at this stage. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 25.02.2026 Rohit/-