2026:JHHC:9954 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2819 of 2026 Aslam Ansari, son of Afroj Ansari … … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, APP --- 02/08.04.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.10.2025 in connection with Jamtara cyber crime P.S. Case No. 65 of 2025, registered 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, section 66(B)(C), (D) of I.T. Act and under section 42(3)(e) of the Telecommunication Act, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge Cyber Crime, Jamtara. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.01.2026 in B.A. No. 11682 of 2025 and thereafter, bail has been granted to the co-accused Sahabuddin Ansari vide order dated 23.03.2026 in B.A. No. 11768 of 2025. The learned counsel submits that he has renewed the prayer for bail primarily on the ground of custody since 24.10.2025 and he submits that charge has been framed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent of similar nature and he has been granted bail in the antecedent case. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the case is of organized crime and the trial of the petitioner can be expedited as the charge has already been framed. 6. Considering the fact that the allegation against the petitioner is relating to organized crime and the bail application of the petitioner 2026:JHHC:9954 2 has been rejected earlier on merits, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court as and when the date is fixed in the trial . 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:08.04.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:09.04.2026