( 2026:JHHC:12976 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2650 of 2026 Ankit Kumar son of Anil Sharma … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. P.P. --- 05/01.05.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 17.12.2025 in connection with Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 358 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338 of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 66 (C)/66(D) of the I.T. Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, II, cum Special Judge, Cyber Crime and Drug & Cosmetics Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is merely an account holder of the account in which an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- has been credited. He submits that allegation is that the informant was tricked by a YONO SBI link on Facebook pursuant to which an amount was debited from the account of the informant and credited in the account of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that neither YONO i.d. belongs to the petitioner nor at that relevant point of time, the phone was belonging to the petitioner. However, during the course of argument, he does not dispute that 1,90,000/- was also not belonged to him. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is connivance of two more persons including the petitioner pursuant to which the amount has been credited in the account of the petitioner and it has come during investigation that the petitioner has thereafter withdrawn an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/-. He has also submitted that the petitioner also confessed his guilt. ( 2026:JHHC:12976 ) 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that defrauded amount was credited in the account of the petitioner and it has also come during investigation that the petitioner had also withdrawn substantial portion of the said amount, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail.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: 01.05.2026 Uploaded on: 04.05.2026 Binit/