( 2026:JHHC:11321 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 932 of 2026 Dev Bhakat, son of Siddeshwar Bhakat … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. PP. --- 04/18.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Cyber Crime Case No. 34 of 2025, arising out of Kowali P.S. Case 36 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S. 2023 and cognizance has been taken under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of BNS and Section 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 03.08.2025 and charge sheet has already been submitted. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are several complaints of cyber fraud against the petitioner and the bank account has also been frozen. He has also submitted that since the case of the co-accused namely Manik Bhakat, Chiranjit Bhagat@ Kiran and Manthan Bhakat and Kitesh Bhakat have been rejected vide common order dated 25.02.2026 by a co-ordinate Bench of this court. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner whereby cyber fraud alleged to have been committed and bail application of the co- accused having been rejected, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. ( 2026:JHHC:11321 ) 2 6. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a student aged 21 years and therefore appropriate observation may be made to expedite the trial. 7. The State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the court as and when the trial commences. 8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director Prosecution and the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District to ensure compliance. 9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 18.04.2026 Uploaded on: 20.04.2026 Binit/