Dismissed¶16

Brahmdeo Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Jul 2026B.A./5031/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court bail rejection (B.A. No. 5031 of 2026, 15.07.2026), Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. Cyber fraud case: Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No.50/2026, BNS 2023 S.111(2)(b)/111(3)/111(4)/319(2)/318(4)/338/336(3)/340(2)/61(2) and I.T. Act S.66(B)/66(C)/66(D)/84(C). Custody since 08.04.2026; charge sheet 04.07.2026; one mobile and SIM recovered; one victim identified; one crime link; similar criminal antecedent with prior bail. Bail refused at this stage; liberty to renew after 3 months. Keywords: bail application rejected, cyber crime special court Deoghar, renewal of bail plea, criminal antecedent.

What did the court decide?

Considering that the victim has been identified and the petitioner has one criminal antecedent of a similar nature, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. ¶16

Brahmdeo Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:20940

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 5031 of 2026

¶4

Brahmdeo Das, son of Mahangu Das … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, APP ---

¶9

05 /15.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶10

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.04.2026 in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No.50/2026, registered under Sections 111(2) (b)/111(3)/111 (4)/319(2)/ 318 (4)/ 338/336(3)/340 (2)/ 61 (2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 66 (B)/66 (C )/66 (D)/84 (C ) of the I.T. Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge II cum Cyber Crime Special Court, Deoghar.

¶11

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.04.2026 and that the charge sheet has been submitted on 04.07.2026. He further submits that one mobile and one sim were allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner, which was standing in the name of the petitioner. It is also submitted that one victim has been identified and there is one crime link. He further submits that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent of a similar nature, in which he has already been enlarged on bail.

¶12

4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. However, she does not dispute the aforesaid submissions.

¶13

5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and

¶14

¶15

2026:JHHC:20940

¶16

considering the fact that the victim has been identified and the petitioner has one criminal antecedent of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.

¶17

6. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after 3 months.

¶18

7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.

¶19

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶20

Date of Order:15.07.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:15.07.2026

¶21

Brahmdeo Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahmdeo Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babudhan Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand

Joto Tiu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhutu Murmu @ Dasmat Murmu Vs State of Jharkhand

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, (in Short Bcku) through Its President I.E. Sri Sundar Lal Mahto Vs Steel Authority of India Limited Represented through Its Chairman

Janta Mazdoor Sangh through Its General Secretary Bachcha Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Department of Labour Employment and Training

Nippu Kushwaha Alais Nippu Kumar Kushwaha Vs the State of Jharkhand