Tajaul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2026)

Tajaul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Jamtara, subject to the stated conditions (pairvikar and close relative as bailors, attendance on every date, fixed Aadhar Card/mobile number, full co-operation with trial proceedings).

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Tajaul Ansari, in custody since 09.12.2025 in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025, should be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

After hearing both sides and considering the custody of the petitioner, the Court directs the petitioner to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Jamtara, in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025.

Ratio / Principle

Bail is granted subject to conditions: one bailor to be the petitioner's present pairvikar and the other a close relative; the petitioner to attend court on each and every date, with even a single default leading to cancellation of the bail bond; deposit of a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card and mobile number (not to be changed without prior court permission); and full co-operation with the proceedings before the learned trial court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail – grant of bail after earlier rejection – petitioner Tajaul Ansari, in custody since 09.12.2025 in Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025, registered under Sections 111(2)(b), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sections 66(b), 66(c) and 66(d) of Information Technology Act and section 42(3)(e) of Telecommunication Act, 2023, pending before Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Jamtara – earlier bail application (B.A. No. 1911 of 2026) rejected vide order dated 20.04.2026 primarily on ground of criminal antecedent and recovery of mobile and SIM cards – custody over 7 months, charge framed 09.04.2026, no witness turned up – Court enlarged petitioner on bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two like sureties, on conditions: one bailor to be petitioner's pairvikar, other a close relative, attendance on each date (even single default cancels bond), deposit of self-attested Aadhar Card copy and mobile number not to change without permission, full co-operation with trial court – application allowed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; 10.07.2026)

2026:JHHC:20567

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 6190 of 2026

Tajaul Ansari, S/O- Ayub Mian

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P. ---

05 /10.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.12.2025 in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025, registered under Sections 111(2)(b), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sections 66(b), 66(c) and 66(d) of Information Technology Act and section 42(3)(e) of Telecommunication Act, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Jamtara.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier vide order dated 20.04.2026 in B.A. No. 1911 of 2026 primarily on the ground that the petitioner has antecedent and there was recovery of mobile and SIM cards from the possession of the petitioner. The case of other coaccused was sought to be distinguished on the ground that they had no criminal antecedent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than 7 months and charge has been framed on 09.04.2026, but no witness has turned up so far.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he has submitted that he is not aware as to whether the witnesses have turned up or not, but other submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to custody of the petitioner are not in dispute.

2026:JHHC:20567

6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Jamtara in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025, on the following conditions:

(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner.

(ii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of even single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner.

(iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.

(v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned trial court.

7. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.

8. Let this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Date of Order:10.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:11.07.2026

2