( 2026:JHHC:12654 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3451 of 2026 Sahi Khan son of Ibrahim Khan … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. PP. --- 05/29.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 22.12.2025 in connection with Bankmore P.S. Case No. 309 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) 319(2), 336(2), 336 (3), 338,340(2), and 61(2), of the B.N.S. 2023 and Sections 66B, 66C and 66D of I.T. Act,2000, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-Cum- Special Judge Cyber Cases, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and no victim has been identified. He has placed the seizure list which gives the place of seizure which is Hotel Maihar room no. 109 Bank More Dhanabad and as many as 20 items have been shown to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner. There are three mobile sets and 16 ATMs which is standing in the name of persons other than the petitioner and there are WhatsApp’s screenshots. He submits that there is no connection of the petitioner with the alleged offence and mere possession of mobile and ATMs standing in the name of third parties does not constitute any offence. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner was apprehended with three mobile phones with numerous ATM Cards belonging to other persons to which the petitioner could not account for. He further submits that on the basis of WhatsApp chats and ATM numbers, further investigation was carried out and it came to light that as many as 61 persons have been defrauded from different states all over India ( 2026:JHHC:12654 ) 2 and the complaints number has also been mentioned with the bank account details. He has submitted that the petitioner may not be released on bail and it is a case of large-scale cyber fraud. It has also been mentioned in paragraph 87 that from the recovered mobile and WhatsApp chats the various account numbers could be identified in connection with which numerous complaints have been lodged. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that name of the two victims have been mentioned in the FIR itself to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and this fact came to light that as many as 16 ATMs have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner standing in the name of different persons in which the petitioner has no explanation and further three mobiles have also been recovered and on the basis of WhatsApp chats which was also recovered from the possession of the petitioner, various complaint and the bank accounts have been identified whose details has been mentioned in paragraph 86 of the case diary. In view of the aforesaid materials collected during investigation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 29.04.2026 Uploaded on: 30.04.2026 Binit/