Dismissed¶20

Sonu Saurav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Mar 2026B.A./11663/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J., 16.03.2026) rejects bail application B.A. 11663/2025 of Sonu Saurav in Deoghar cyber-crime case (Cyber Crime Case No. 133 of 2025; Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 108 of 2025); charges: BNS 2023 ss.111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and IT Act ss.66(B), 66(C), 66(D), 84(C); in custody since 04.08.2025; bail refused on ground of one criminal antecedent and victim's support for prosecution.

What did the court decide?

After hearing both sides and considering the allegations, the petitioner's one criminal antecedent, and the fact that the victim supported the case of the prosecution, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. ¶19

Sonu Saurav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Sonu Saurav, in custody since 04.08.2025 in connection with Cyber Crime Case No. 133 of 2025 (Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 108 of 2025) for offences under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) & 84(C) of the Information Technology Act, should be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Court's answer

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The instant bail application is rejected.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

B.A. No. 11663 of 2025 — Sonu Saurav v. The State of Jharkhand (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; order no. 04 dated 16.03.2026): Regular-bail application REJECTED. The petitioner, aged about 24 years, resident of Village Baghmara, Jasidih, District Deoghar, is in custody since 04.08.2025 in Cyber Crime Case No. 133 of 2025 corresponding to Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 108 of 2025, for offences registered under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) & 84(C) of the Information Technology Act, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Deoghar. Petitioner's counsel pleaded false implication, alleging the mobile and SIM were implanted upon the petitioner by the police; the State opposed, stating the petitioner has a criminal antecedent of similar nature, that the case diary details the use of the mobile and SIM, and that the victim supports the allegation. Considering the allegations, the petitioner's one criminal antecedent and the victim's support for the prosecution, the Court declined to enlarge him on bail and ordered the decision communicated to the court concerned through 'FAX/E-mail'.

¶1

2026:JHHC:7104

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 11663 of 2025

¶4

Sonu Saurav, aged about 24 years, Son of Pappu Kumar Das, Resident of Village Baghmara, P.O. and P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶7

¶8

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate

¶10

¶11

04 /16.03.2026

¶12

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶13

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.08.2025 in connection with Cyber Crime Case No. 133 of 2025 corresponding to Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 108 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) & 84(C) of the Information Technology Act pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum- Special Judge, Deoghar.

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has also submitted that the mobile and the SIM have been implanted upon the petitioner by the police to make an allegation of Cyber offence.

¶15

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner also has criminal antecedent of similar nature and in the case diary, the use of mobile and SIM by the petitioner has been given in details. He has also submitted that the victim has also come forward to support the allegation against the petitioner.

¶16

5. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is only one victim.

¶17

¶18

2026:JHHC:7104

¶19

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegations and also that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent and the victim has supported the case of the prosecution, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶20

7. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected.

¶21

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’.

¶22

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶23

16.03.2026

¶24