Regular bail application by an accused in a cyber fraud case alleging cheating of the informant of about Rs. 26.13 lakhs through banking transactions. The court noted that around Rs. 15 lakhs was transferred to the petitioner's account and declined bail, while directing the State to promptly produce witnesses as charge had been framed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
( 2026:JHHC:17627 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3723 of 2026
Pradeep Kumar Mahto son of Kesho Mahto … … Petitioner Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
06 /17.06.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with C.I.D. Cyber P.S. Case No. 154 of 2024 for the offences registered under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 and 120(b) of the IPC and under Section 66(b), 66 (c) and 66(d) of I.T. Act, pending in the court of learned A.J.C. II, Ranchi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be the nephew of the informant of the case and as per the allegation, cyber fraud has been committed against the informant of the case to the extent of Rs. 26 lacs and 13 thousand. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is in custody since 11.09.2024 and charge has been framed on 15.07.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there has been banking transaction and the amount was ultimately transferred in the bank account of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 15 lacs and odd.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that cyber fraud alleged to have been committed through banking transaction and money was transferred in the account of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 15 lacs, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is hereby rejected.
6. However, the charge has already been framed, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the court.
( 2026:JHHC:17627 )
7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District to ensure compliance.
8. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 17.06.2026 Uploaded on 18.06.2026
Binit/
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner accused of cyber fraud involving about Rs. 26.13 lakhs should be enlarged on regular bail after framing of charge.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pradeep Kumar Mahto son of Kesho Mahto
The State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
