( 2026:JHHC:9603 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7514 of 2025 Rakesh Kumar aged about 25 years, son of Surendra Jha … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, APP --- 10/06.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2025 in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 84 of 2021 for the offences registered under Sections 419,420,467,468,471,120(B) of the IPC and Sections 66 (B) (C) (D), 84(C) of the Information Technology Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge (Cyber Crime Cases), Deoghar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2025 and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the mobile through which the phone call was made does not belong to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that more than Rs. 11 lacs have been syphoned through the bank account of the petitioner which was the amount deposited in the account of the petitioner in the name of grant of a gas agency. The transactions are through the bank and the details has been mentioned in the FIR itself. The account number has been mentioned in the FIR and the account belongs to the petitioner. He has also submitted that the petitioner was already facing trial in Silwasa P.S. Case No. 38 of 2020 under Section 419,420 of IPC and is a habitual criminal. 5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said case has been compounded and closed. ( 2026:JHHC:9603 ) 2 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner with respect to siphoning of more than Rs.11 lacs through his bank account by posing himself to be the authority competent to grant gas agency, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 7. The State is directed to ensure that the witnesses be promptly produced before the court. 8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and the Director, Prosecution. 9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 06.04.2026 Uploaded on: 07.04.2026 Binit/