B.A./9312/2026 of SIRAJ ANSARI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 8 October 2026

( 2026:JHHC:30153 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 9312 of 2026

Siraj Ansari, aged about 26 years, S/o Kayum Ansari, R/o Loharbandha, P.O.+P.S.- Karmatanr, District-Jamtara

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate

For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. P.P.

---

03/08.10.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2026 in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 36 of 2026, registered under Sections 111(2)(b), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023, Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) of I.T. Act and Section 42(3)(e) of Telecommunications Act, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Jamtara.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that four mobile phones and six SIM cards are alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. One stands in the name of the father of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2026. Charge-sheet has already been submitted and he has no criminal antecedent. No crime link has been found and no victim has been identified. He has further submitted that he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court, if bail is granted.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has opposed the prayer for bail and has referred to paragraph no.-42 to 48 of the Case Diary to submit that the SIMs are in the name of other persons whose details have been mentioned therein and there are suspicious e-wallets which have been found in the mobile. The further investigation is still going on and charge-sheet has been submitted for alleged offence under Sections 111(2)(b), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5) of ( 2026:JHHC:30153 )

2

B.N.S, 2023 and Sections 66(B), 66(C) and 66(D) of I.T. Act and Section 42(3)(e) of the Telecommunication Act on 05.09.2026. Learned counsel submits that the case is of organized crime, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the case is of organized crime and numerous mobile phones and SIMs, which do not belong to the petitioner have been seized from the possession of the petitioner and it has come on record that SIMs are standing in the name of other persons relating to different states including Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram, etc., and further investigation is going on, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:08.10.2026 Nandini Date of Uploading: