( 2026:JHHC:8335 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9791 of 2025 Dilbar Shahi @ Dilwar Shahi, aged about 21 years, S/o- Sayumuddin Ansari, R/o Village-Alagchuwan, P.O.+P.S.- Karmatarn, District-Jamtara. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party - CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, SPL PP --- 06/24.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2025 in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 116 of 2025 for the offences registered under Sections 319 (2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340 (2), 61 (2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 66B, 66C, 66D and 84(C) of I.T. Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge Cyber Crime Court, Deoghar. 3. Counter affidavit filed during the court proceeding is taken on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and several other co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the learned trial court and has referred to the bail order granted to Uttam Kumar Das on 25.09.2025 and bail granted to Ajay Pandit and Ramesh Pandit on 24.09.2025. 5. The learned counsel has also submitted that no SIM has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has only one lap top and one mobile has been recovered and there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the alleged offfence . 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that using the mobile altogether 22 SIMs were used for commission of cyber offence and in the portal 28 complaints have been lodged in connection with use of the mobile and one victim has also supported the case of prosecution. He has referred to paragraph 42 and 58 of the case diary. ( 2026:JHHC:8335 ) 2 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid submissions, it appears that the petitioner has been apprehended along with the mobile phone and by using the mobile numerous complaints have been registered and one victim has also supported the case of the prosecution. The court while granting bail to the co-accused has recorded that the cases against those co- accused persons were doubtful. The case of the petitioner is on different footing. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 24.03.2026 Uploaded on: 28.03.2026 Binit/