Dismissed

Daud Ahmad v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Sept 2026Cr.A(DB)/950/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against rejection of bail in a cyber fraud case involving trafficking for honey trapping. The Court dismissed the appeal, refusing to interfere with the lower court's order based on evidence of appellant's involvement in nefarious activities and rejection of bail for a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

The bail application of co-accused remains rejected; intervention in the impugned order is refused; this appeal is dismissed.

Daud Ahmad Vs State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:27606-DB )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 950 of 2026

¶3

¶4

Daud Ahmad S/o Md. Mustafa, R/o Dongri, PO & PS Dongri, District … … Mumbai (Maharashtra) Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

¶7

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶9

¶10

For the Appellant : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : Special P.P.

¶11

¶12

5/14.09.2026 Heard Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special P.P. appearing for the State.

¶13

This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner II cum Special Judge, Cyber Crime and Drugs and Cosmetics, Ranchi in connection with MCA No. 1386 of 2026 arising out of Cyber Crime P. S. Case No. 158 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶14

The prosecution case reveals that the informant who had studied till class 12 was searching for a job as the financial condition of his family was poor. On 06.10.2025, the informant had made a contact with one Akhil though “Telegram” who had assured him that he will find him a job at Bangkok on a salary of Rs. 70,000/- per month. It has been stated that on 08.10.2025, the said person had sent on the Telegram account of the informant, the tickets for Bangkok and on 10.10.2025, the Arrival Pass of Immigration Bureau, Royal Thailand Police as well as the ticket to Boss Suites Nana Hotel, Bangkok and the informant was asked to bring Rs. 30,000/-. The informant had boarded his flight on 10.10.2025 and he landed at Thailand Airport, Bangkok on 11.10.2025. An associate of Akhil had come who had taken him on a car to Myanmar by crossing the

¶15

-2-

¶16

border. There were several persons with him who were engaged in cyber-crime. On 18.10.2025, there was a raid by the Myanmar Army and the informant was kept in a Detention Centre. With the assistance of the Indian Embassy, the informant was brought back to Ghaziabad on an Indian Air Force plane.

¶17

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Cyber Crime P. S. Case No. 158 of 2025 was instituted against the appellant and others.

¶18

It has been submitted by Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not named in the FIR and his name has transpired on the confessional statement of co-accused – Md. Sartaj Alam. It has been submitted that the appellant is a bona-fide travel agent carrying on the business of booking air-tickets through his travel agency in Mumbai and merely because the appellant had booked an air ticket as a passenger, it cannot be inferred that he is in league with the other accused persons involved in cyber crime. He has further submitted that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent and at present after framing of charge, one witness being the informant has been examined, who has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶19

Learned Special P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that in course of investigation, incriminating materials have been collected by the Investigating Officer indicating his nexus with the other accused persons. It has been submitted that the prayer for bail of one of the co-accused has been rejected in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 707 of 2026.

¶20

We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the case diary. 7. A perusal of the case diary reveals the manner in which the victims were trapped and sent to Thailand and Myanmar for the purposes of committing cyber fraud/honey trapping and the U.S. citizens were the main target. The Whatsapp chats innumerable in number points to the deep-rooted involvement of the appellant in such nefarious activities. The money transactions between the appellant and Sartaj Alam have also come to the fore in course of investigation as recorded at paragraph 91 of the case diary. Though, the informant has been declared hostile by the

¶21

-3-

¶22

prosecution, but there are other victim as well who will be examined in course of time and on consideration of the overall circumstances of the case and the fact that the bail application of the co-accused has been rejected by us, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned order dated 06.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner II cum Special Judge, Cyber Crime and Drugs and Cosmetics, Ranchi in connection with MCA No. 1386 of 2026 arising out of Cyber Crime P. S. Case No. 158 of 2025 and consequently, this appeal is dismissed.

¶23

Pending I.A., if any also stands closed.

¶24

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶25

(Arun Kumari Rai, J.)

¶26

14 September 2026 Uploaded R. Shekhar Cp 3

Daud Ahmad v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daud Ahmad v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases