Dismissed¶7

Jogendra Rana v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2026B.A./5811/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi - bail application B.A. No. 5811 of 2026 rejected (08.07.2026, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) in Cyber P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025, CJM Ramgarh, under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(4), 319(2), 318(4), 316(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of I.T. Act; grounds: petitioner's bank account directly involved, organized crime, three crime links connecting the account; informant defrauded of Rs. 7,80,000/-; Rs. 1,80,000/- credited to petitioner's account; Rs. 1,36,532/- already released to victim; custody since 04.12.2025; charge-sheet filed; co-accused nephew Lalu Rana.

What did the court decide?

The bank account of the petitioner is directly involved in this case. ¶7

Jogendra Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:20214 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5811 of 2026

¶3

Jogendra Rana, aged about 61 years, S/o Late Ganpat Prasad, R/o Steam Colony, Patratu, PO and PS- Patratu, District- Ramgarh.

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner : M/s Ruchi Mukti, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, APP ---

¶10

05 /08.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶11

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.12.2025 in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No.08 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 111 (2) (b), 111(4), 319 (2), 318 (4), 316 (2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 66(C) and 66 (D) of I.T. Act and the case is pending in the court of learned CJM, Ramgarh.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is an accused rather he is the victim of the circumstances. He has submitted that petitioner is aged 61 years old and as per the allegation, informant was defrauded with a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- and amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was credited in the Bank account of the petitioner, but the petitioner has no knowledge and his nephew is having his passbook etc. and he is the co-accused in this case namely, Lalu Rana.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that it is a case of organized crime and portion

¶14

( 2026:JHHC:20214 )

¶15

of defrauded amount has been credited in the account of the petitioner and there are three crime links involved in the account of the petitioner. 5. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge-sheet has already been submitted.

¶16

6. He further submits that so far part of the amount which was credited in the account of the petitioner is concerned, the same has been released in favour of the victim by the order of learned court below to the tune of Rs.1,36,532/-

¶17

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that bank account of the petitioner is directly involved in this case. Further it appears that it is a case of organized crime and as per the materials collected during investigation, three crime links have been found connecting the bank account of the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.

¶18

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

¶19

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶20

08.07.2026

¶21

Uploaded 11.07.2026 sandeep/-

Jogendra Rana v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jogendra Rana 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

Ravi Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Joel @ Jewel Murmu @ Joel Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintu Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms The Tata Pigments Limited Through Vaidyanathan Natarajan Vs Labour

MD Altaf Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand