Jharkhand High Court
B.A./10235/2026 of PRASANJIT DAN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 November 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10235 of 2026 Prasanjit Dan, aged about 24 years, S/O -Nibas Dan, R/O Village -Sonbad, P.O +P.S. - Jamtara, District - Jamtara …. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. ….Opp. Party … CORAM: HON’BLE MR.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 10235 of 2026
Prasanjit Dan, aged about 24 years, S/O -Nibas Dan, R/O
Village -Sonbad, P.O +P.S. - Jamtara, District - Jamtara
….
…. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
….
….Opp. Party
…
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
For the Petitioner:
Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate
For the State:
Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P.
…
Order No.02/dated: 05.11.2026
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.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 23 of 2026 for the offences registered under Sections 318(4)/319(2) of B.N.S, 2023 and Sections 66-B, 66-C and 66-D of I.T. Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Jamtara.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly conceded to the fact that one similar criminal case is pending against this petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was not apprehended from his house rather it is alleged that Rs. 7.5 lacs, mobile phones, SIM cards etc. got recovered from his house and the petitioner surrendered before the court concerned on 01.09.2026 and charge sheet has already been submitted and nothing incriminating material has been collected during course of investigation against this petitioner. Upon aforesaid premise, prayer for bail has been made.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner but conceded to the fact that charge sheet has already been submitted and one of the SIM cards which has been recovered from the house of the petitioner belongs to a person who is resident of State of Mizoram.
6. Record reveals that on secret information raid was conducted in the house of this petitioner and cash amount of Rs. 7.5 lacs, mobile phones and SIM cards got recovered and one SIM card which got recovered belongs to a person who is resident of State of Mizoram.
7. Considering the fact that this petitioner is in custody since 01.09.2026 and charge sheet has already been submitted and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation, therefore, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Jamtara in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 23 of 2026, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The above-named petitioner shall file an undertaking at the time of furnishing bail bonds before the court concerned stating therein that he shall not involve himself in similar type of offences in future.
(ii) He is directed to file an affidavit after a lapse of every three months from the date of release, before the court concerned stating therein that he is not involved/involved in any other similar type of offences on the date of filing of such affidavit before the court concerned.
(iii) Further, the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of hearing, except any medical exigency.
9. It is further clarified that if the condition of filing of an affidavit is not complied by the above-named petitioner, then it deems to be violation of condition of this bail order and provides a ground for cancellation of bail and the prosecution shall proceed for the cancellation of bail of the petitioner by filing an appropriate application before the trial court in accordance with law.
10. In case of further involvement of this petitioner in similar type of cases, then the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail of petitioner before the trial court on the ground of violation of the condition of bail and the trial court shall decide the application as expeditiously as possible considering the overall circumstances of the case.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
05th November, 2026
R.K./Rajnish