( 2026:JHHC:12656 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2440 of 2026 Biku Sah son of Suresh Sah … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, APP --- 03/29.04.2026 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 Information Technology Act, 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 been falsely implicated in this case and he has no criminal antecedent. He has submitted that as per the seizure list, numerous ATMs and mobile phones have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, but all these recovered articles have been implanted by the police upon the petitioner. He has further submitted that since none of the mobile phones and recovered SIM numbers belong to the petitioner, so any cyber offence committed from those SIM numbers and mobile numbers cannot be related to the petitioner as the police has implanted the aforesaid items upon the petitioner. As per the case, the petitioner belongs to Rohtas in the State of Bihar and he was arrested from Maihar Hotel, Purana Bazar, Dhanbad within the state of Jharkhand. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that numerous phone numbers and SIMs standing in the name of persons other than the petitioner have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner to which the petitioner had no explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner may not be enlarged ( 2026:JHHC:12656 ) 2 on bail. He has also referred to paragraph no. 86 of the case diary wherein altogether 61 crime links have been identified who have lodged complaint in the portal in connection with offence involved in this case. He has also submitted that in paragraph 89,90,91 and 92 of the case diary the statement of some of the victims have also been recorded and investigation is still going on. 5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge sheet has been submitted and further investigation is going on. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegation of recovery of huge numbers of SIMs and mobiles phones from the possession of the petitioner to which the petitioner could not account for and crime links were found as is recorded in the case diary and statement of victims have also been recorded , this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 7. 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/