Dismissed¶17

Akhlakh Patel v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Jul 2026B.A./6505/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC bail rejection; B.A. No. 6505 of 2026; Akhlakh Patel v. State of Jharkhand; Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; Cyber P.S. Case No. 116 of 2025; BNS 2023 ss. 318(2)(3)(4), 319(2), 336(2)(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2); IT Act ss. 66(B), 66(C), 66(D); cyber offence; WhatsApp group; custody since 28.01.2026; informant defrauded Rs. 78,50,000/-; Rs. 16,00,000/- credited to petitioner's bank account; bail prayer rejected 22.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

The court declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail because a portion of the amount siphoned from the informant of the case was credited in the bank account of the petitioner; accordingly, the prayer for bail was rejected. ¶17

Akhlakh Patel Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:21615 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6505 of 2026

¶3

Akhlakh Patel son of Late Rais Patel alias Late Raish Patel

¶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 : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, APP

¶10

¶11

04 /22.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶12

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2026 in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 116 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 318(2)/ 318(3)/ 318(4)/319(2)/336(2)/336(3)/338/340(2)/ 61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 66(B)/66(C) and 66(D) of the I.T. Act, pending in the court of learned A.J.C.-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Ranchi.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner was not a member of the whatsapp group which was used for the purposes of committing cyber offence.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the informant has been defrauded to the extent of Rs. 78,50,000/- and in the bank account of the petitioner, Rs. 16,00,000/- was transferred from the account of the informant.

¶15

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that portion of the amount siphoned from the informant of the case was credited in the bank

¶16

( 2026:JHHC:21615 )

¶17

account of the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.

¶18

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

¶19

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶20

Dated: 22.07.2026 Uploaded on 24.07.2026 Binit/

¶21

Akhlakh Patel v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhlakh Patel 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

Tinku Das @ Tinku Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Nandan Kamar Alias Abhishek Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand through a.C.B.(Vigilance)

Vishal Sharma @ Vishal Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Das @ Pawan Kumar Das Vs State of Jharkhand

Sneh Lata Tigga Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary