Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9381/2026 of ANIL PANDIT Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 7 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9381 of 2026 Anil Pandit, aged about 34 years, son of late Gendo Pandit, resident of village – Bekobar, P.O. – Bekobar, P.S. – Jainagar, District - Koderma … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … …
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
2026:JHHC:30019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9381 of 2026
Anil Pandit, aged about 34 years, son of late Gendo Pandit, resident of village – Bekobar, P.O. – Bekobar, P.S. – Jainagar, District - Koderma
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. PP
---
07/07.10.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No.68 of 2026, registered under Sections 316(2), 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)/3(5) of BNS, and Sections 66(B)(C), 84(C) of IT Act, 2000 now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2026 and charge has been framed on 21.07.2026. He submits that the next date fixed in the case is 12.10.2026 for production of witnesses. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case in the name of running services application namely “Call Girls Scort Service” on the pretext of call girl service .
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has antecedent of similar nature and the impugned order itself reveals that the petitioner through his mobile number has cheated Rs.96,500/- whose acknowledgment number has also been mentioned.
5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted bail in the other case and the co-accused, namely Mantu Kumar Pandit, has been enlarged on bail by this Court in B.A. No.5612 of 2026 vide order dated 29.07.2026.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and 2026:JHHC:30019
considering the fact that the complaint regarding fraud in connection with providing aforesaid services has been found, wherein one person has been cheated to the extent of Rs.96,500/- and the petitioner has antecedent of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.
7. So far as the bail of the co-accused is concerned, he had no criminal antecedent.
8. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after 6 months.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:07.10.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:08.10.2026