Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8216/2026 of RAVI KUMAR SAW Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 24 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8216 of 2026 Ravi Kumar Saw, aged about 23 years, S/o Meghlal Saw, resident of Charnakhiya, Nawada P.O. Bishungarh P.S. – Charnakhiya, District Hazaribagh … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
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:28813
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8216 of 2026
Ravi Kumar Saw, aged about 23 years, S/o Meghlal Saw, resident of Charnakhiya, Nawada P.O. Bishungarh P.S. – Charnakhiya, District Hazaribagh
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, APP
---
06/24.09.2026
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 CID Cyber P.S. Case No.141 of 2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3) of BNS and Sections 66(C),66(D) of IT Act and charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS and Sections 66(B), 66(C) and 66(D) of IT Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner II cum Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Ranchi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and is in fact a victim. She submits that it is alleged that a portion of the defrauded amount was found in the bank account of the petitioner, amounting to Rs.3,93,500/- out of the total defrauded amount of Rs.19,85,073/-. The learned counsel has submitted that under incorrect instructions, she had stated that on the last date of hearing i.e. on 03.09.2026 that it was wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that a part of the defrauded amount was also withdrawn by the petitioner. She submits that amount has been withdrawn from the account of the petitioner, but the petitioner has not withdrawn the said amount.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and even today Rs.3,40,000/- still remains in the account of the petitioner.
2026:JHHC:28813
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the defrauded amount has been found in the account of the petitioner. The details have been mentioned in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit and he submitted that total Rs.3,93,500/- was the proceeds of crime and only Rs.11,812/- remained as a closing balance.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the aforesaid fact which has come during investigation that the defrauded amount has been credited in the account of the petitioner and was substantially withdrawn , this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:24.09.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:29.09.2026