[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Kailash Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party on 17 February, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:4483
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 10608 of 2025
Kailash Mandal, aged about 38 years, son of Pramod Kumar Mandal,
resident of Village Murlidih, P.O. & P.S. Karmatand, District Jamtara,
Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
---
th
05/17 February 2026
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
in custody in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 56 of
2025 for the offence registered under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4),
111(7), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 66(B) (C) and (D) of the
Information Technology Act and Sections 42(3)(e) of the
Telecommunication Act, 2023, now said to have been pending in the court of
learned Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Jamtara.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody since 26.08.2025. He
submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted on 19.11.2025, but the
charge has not been framed so far. The learned counsel submits that there is
recovery of three mobile phones and several SIMs/ATM Cards and also cash
of Rs. 1,11,000/- from the possession of petitioner. He submits that the
petitioner has one criminal antecedent of the year 2018, in which he is still
facing the trial. The learned counsel submits so far as this case is concerned
the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one co-
accused, namely, Khogen Dan has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 08.12.2025 in B.A. No. 10027 of 2025.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer
and has submitted that most of the SIMs do not belong to the petitioner or his
2026:JHHC:4483
family members. Two of his SIMs are in the name of the petitioner and the
other two SIMs belong to 3rd party, to which the petitioner was not able to
account for. He has referred to paragraph Nos. 72, 74, 76 and 77 of the case
diary and has submitted that the mobile phones and SIMs recovered from the
possession of the petitioner have been used for commission of cyber offence
and various persons have been defrauded.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the
fact that mobile phones / SIMs were recovered from the petitioner, and some
of them were in the name of other persons, to which the petitioner has no
explanation, and by referring to the case diary, the learned counsel for the
State has pointed out that it has come in investigation that the cyber offence
has been committed by using these phones and SIMs, this Court is not
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. So far as grant of bail to the other co-accused, namely, Khogen Dan is
concerned, it appears that the bail was granted on the submission that mobile
phones were used for cheating and no victim had come up.
8. In view of the aforesaid materials found in the case diary the case of
the petitioner is different from Khogen Dan.
9. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.
10. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the
witnesses during trial.
11. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of
this order to the concerned authority to ensure prompt production of the
witnesses on the date as may be fixed by the learned trial court.
12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned
through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 17.02.2026
Uploaded On: 17.02.2026
Mukul/-
