B.A. filed by Shashi Shankar Kumar challenging custody in cyber fraud case involving IPC and IT Act sections. Court rejected renewed bail application citing serious nature and prior merit rejection.
Bail application rejected; Directed State to ensure prompt production of remaining witnesses.
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:17665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 5035 of 2026
Shashi Shankar Kumar, Son of Ramnandan Sah … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate ---
02/18th June 2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 96 of 2023 for the offence registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sections 66(B), 66(C) and 66(D) of the I.T. Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned A.J.C. II, Ranchi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected in B.A. No. 2850 of 2024 vide order dated 02.12.2024 along with bail application of the co-accused, namely, Amit Jaiswal in B.A. No. 8031 of 2024.
3. He submits that the petitioner moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3142 of 2025 and after some argument, he was permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to take appropriate steps. This happened vide order dated 05.01.2026.
4. The learned counsel submits that though the reason for withdrawal is not reflected from the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the reason for withdrawal was that the co-accused, namely, Amit Jaiswal was subsequently granted bail in B.A No. 3935 of 2025 vide order dated 18.07.2025 by this court on the ground that the charge was framed, but
1
2026:JHHC:17665
the prosecution had not produced any witness. The learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is on identical footing.
5. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail and by the impugned order passed by the learned court, which is dated 11.02.2026, out of 11 charge-sheet witnesses, only 4 were examined. He has further submitted that thereafter P.W.-5 was examined on 19.05.2026, but on account of paucity of time, P.W.-5 could not be cross-examined. However, P.W.-5 did not appear for his cross-examination on the next date i.e. 11.06.2026 and the prosecution is lingering the case. The next date before the learned court is tomorrow i.e. 19th June 2026. The charge was framed on 07.05.2024 and the petitioner is in custody since 07.01.2024.
6. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the matter relates to cyber fraud. It is further relating to crypto currency and Rs. 18 crores and odd was deposited in the account of the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecution is ready to produce the witnesses and tomorrow also P.W.-5 will appear for cross-examination. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of offence as alleged and that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merits earlier and the petitioner on 05.01.2026 withdrew the SLP against the order of rejection and the trial is in progress, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected.
9. So far as the bail order of co-accused, namely, Amit Jaiswal is concerned, he was granted bail on 18.07.2025 as at that point of time, the charge was framed, but the prosecution witnesses were not produced. As of now, the prosecution is producing the witnesses before the court. 10. The State is directed to ensure prompt production of the remaining witnesses.
2
2026:JHHC:17665
11. Learned counsel for the State is directed to immediately communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.
12. There can be no excuse for non-production of remaining witnesses, once the petitioner is in custody.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 18.06.2026 Uploaded On: 18.06.2026 Mukul/-
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) of IT Act.
Whether the charges framed against the petitioner merit bail considering the seriousness of the offence and previous rejection.
Shashi Shankar Kumar
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
