2026:JHHC:4418 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10607 of 2025 Samad @ Sahmat Ansari, aged about 20 years, son of Kasim Mian, resident of Alakchuwan, P.O. & P.S. Karmatanr, District Jamtara … … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate --- 05/17th February 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 26 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 111(2)(ii), 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 66 (B) (C) and (D) of the Information Technology Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Jamtara. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2025 and except that he was caught hold with five mobile sets and seven SIMs, there is no material against the petitioner. He submits that the charge has been framed on 18.09.2025, but till date no witness has been examined. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer by referring to the case diary. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case-diary, this Court finds that the material on case diary reveals that the petitioner was found with Mobile Sets and SIM Numbers which were standing in the name of other persons which the petitioner could not account for and those persons also could not be found/located and it is alleged that the petitioner got such Mobile Sets and SIM Numbers 2026:JHHC:4418 2 fraudulently issued in their names. It has been alleged that these Mobile Sets /SIM Numbers were used for the purposes of committing cyber- crime. 5. Considering the aforesaid materials in the case diary and the nature of allegation and also considering the fact that the trial has already commenced, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. This bail application is hereby rejected. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses in the trial. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the concerned authority to ensure prompt production of the witnesses on the date as may be fixed by the learned trial court. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 17.02.2026 Uploaded On: 17.02.2026 Mukul/-