Dismissed¶12

Alok Poul @ Alok Pal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Jun 2026B.A./4307/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cyber fraud bail rejection, High Court of Jharkhand, B.A. No. 4307 of 2026 (decided 11.06.2026, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.); Cyber P.S. Case No. 77 of 2022, Deoghar; IPC Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and IT Act Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D), 84(C); custody since 14.10.2025; charge sheet 09.01.2026; charge framed 25.02.2026; Rs. 90,000/- traced from informant's account to petitioner's IDFC account no. 10099878792 with no explanation; parity with co-accused (B.A. Nos. 4698 and 1534 of 2026) urged; bail rejected with liberty to renew after 3 months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to renew the prayer for bail after 3 months. ¶12

Alok Poul @ Alok Pal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to renew the prayer for bail after 3 months.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 77 of 2022 for the alleged cyber fraud offences, should be enlarged on bail.

¶7

Court's answer

The court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage, considering the facts and circumstances of the cyber fraud alleged, including the unexplained transfer of Rs. 90,000/- from the informant's bank account to the petitioner's IDFC bank account; prayer for bail rejected at this stage.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was granted liberty to renew the prayer for bail after 3 months.

¶12

Key takeaways

As recorded in the impugned order from the memo of evidence, Rs. 90,000/- was transferred from the informant's bank account to the petitioner's IDFC bank account no. 10099878792; it was not the petitioner's case that the account did not belong to him, and he had no explanation for this fact.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application (B.A. No. 4307 of 2026) before the High Court of Jharkhand rejected. Petitioner in custody since 14.10.2025 in Cyber P.S. Case No. 77 of 2022 for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC and Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) and 84(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Spl. Judge, Cyber Crime Cases, Deoghar; charge sheet dated 09.01.2026 and charge framed on 25.02.2026; trial commenced but prosecution witnesses absent on two occasions; co-accused Aajad Das and Bishnu Ravidas granted bail by co-ordinate Benches in B.A. No. 4698 of 2026 and B.A. No. 1534 of 2026. The impugned order, on the memo of evidence, recorded transfer of Rs. 90,000/- from the informant's bank account to the petitioner's IDFC bank account no. 10099878792, which the petitioner did not dispute and for which he had no explanation. Held: the court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage; prayer for bail rejected with liberty to renew after 3 months.

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:16927 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4307 of 2026

¶3

Alok Poul @ Alok Pal, Son of Ganesh Pal … … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ---

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : None

¶6

¶7

05 /11.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 77 of 2022, for the offences registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468,471,120(B) of IPC and Section 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) and Section 84(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Spl. Judge Cyber Crime Cases, Deoghar.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 14.10.2025. Charge sheet has been submitted on 09.01.2026 and charge has been framed on 25.02.2026. He further submits that trial has commenced but on two occasions, none of the prosecution witness has come before the court. The learned counsel has submitted that similarly situated co-accused namely Aajad Das and Bishnu Ravidas have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this court in B.A. No. 4698 of 2026 and in B.A. No. 1534 of 2026 respectively.

¶9

4. As per the impugned order itself it has been recorded from the memo of evidence that an amount of Rs. 90,000/- has been transferred from the bank account of the informant to the IDFC bank account no. 10099878792 of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the bank account mentioned in the impugned order does not belong to the petitioner and the petitioner has no explanation regarding this fact.

¶10

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances in connection with the cyber fraud alleged to have been committed, this court is not

¶11

( 2026:JHHC:16927 )

¶12

inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected at this stage. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after 3 months.

¶13

6. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.

¶14

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶15

Dated: 11.06.2026 Uploaded on 12.06.2026

¶16

Binit/

¶17

Alok Poul @ Alok Pal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Poul @ Alok Pal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manika Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Monu Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dulal Mirdha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shila Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Anil Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand