Allowed¶17

Sunil Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Sept 2025B.A./2240/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed; Sunil Das v. State of Jharkhand; B.A. No. 2240 of 2025; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Justice Ambuj Nath; cyber crime; Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 143 of 2024; B.N.S. 2023 Ss. 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61; I.T. Act Ss. 66B, 66C, 66D, 84C; nine months custody; charge framed 23.04.2025; no prosecution witness examined; bail bond Rs. 20,000/-; two sureties; Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge Cyber Crime Cases Deoghar; neutral citation (2025:JHHC:27373); decided 09.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime Cases, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 143 of 2024.

Sunil Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27373 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 2240 of 2025

¶3

¶4

Sunil Das, aged about 23 years, S/o. Prasadi Das, R/o. Vill.- Lakhipur, P.O. & P.S.- Pathrol, Dist. Deoghar.

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

-Versus - The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party

¶7

¶8

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶9

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. ------

¶10

04/09.09.2025

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 143 of 2024, for the offences registered under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) & 61 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 66B, 66C, 66D and 84C of the I.T. Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime Cases, Deoghar.

¶13

On 30.12.2024, at about 10:25 P.M., Cyber Police, Deoghar on the basis of confidential information that several criminals have assembled in village Pathra, raided the place of occurrence and apprehended this petitioner alongwith co-accused persons. On search, a mobile phone is alleged to have recovered from the possession of this petitioner.

¶14

It was submitted that petitioner has remained in custody for about nine months.

¶15

Report regarding the stage of trial and time required for its conclusion, earlier called for from the learned Trial Court, has been received. It appears that charge has been framed in this case on 23.04.2025. It further appears that prosecution has not examined any witness till now.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to release the petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the

¶17

satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime Cases, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 143 of 2024.

¶18

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶19

Rahul/-

Sunil Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar Karan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Alok Ranjan Vs the Directorate of Enforcement

Md. Sameer Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamlesh Chik Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhand

Subodh Kumar Singh Alias Subodh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand