[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Ajay Rambharose Walmiki vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opp. Party on 18 March, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:7874
INTHE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 205 of 2026
---------
Ajay Rambharose Walmiki, aged about 35 years, son of
Rambharose Walmiki, resident of Qr. No. 108, L.I.G.- 2, Amarawati
Road, Mhada Colony, P.O. P.O. Deolameti, P.S. Wadi, Dist. Nagpur
(Maharashtra)
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
----------
03/Dated: 18 March, 2026
th
1. The instantapplication has been filed under Sections483 &484
ofBNSS, 2023 forgrant of bail in connection with Ranchi Cyber P.S.
Case No 91 of 2025 registered under Sections 318(2), 318(3),
318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023
pending in the court of learned AJC, II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber
Crime, Ranchi.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that merely on
the basis of the false allegation, the petitioner has been implicated
in this present case.
3. It has been submitted that one co-accused, namely, Jayant
Tarachand Annapurne has been directed to be released on bail
vide order dated 16.03.2026 passed in B.A. No.168 of 2026 by co-
ordinate Bench of this Court and the case of the present applicant
is identical to that of the petitioner of B.A. No.168 of 2026, namely,
Page | 1
2026:JHHC:7874
Jayant Tarachand Annapurne therefore, on the ground of parity
the prayer for bail of the present applicant is fit to be allowed.
4. It has further been submitted that the confessional statement of
the petitioner/applicant was taken by the police after applying
coercion at the time of his arrest and as a matter of fact, he was
confined in a faraway hotel Megh Residency, Wasi, Navi Mumbai
from 23.07.2025 to 31.07.2025 by Manoj and his associate in the
name of giving commission and they had misused his account.
5. Submission has also been made that the petitioner is having no
criminal antecedents and he is languishing in judicial custody
since 16.09.2025, as such, the present petitioner may also be
enlarged on bail.
6. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State,
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner/applicant is serious and he along
with other co-accused cheated the informant in the name of
trading, therefore the prayer for bail of the petitioner is not fit to
be allowed.
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has
also gone through the counter affidavit which has been filed by
the state.
8. The foremost ground raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that one co-accused, namely, Jayant Tarachand
Annapurne has been directed to be released on bail vide order
Page | 2
2026:JHHC:7874
dated 16.03.2026 passed in B.A. No.168 of 2026 by co-ordinate
Bench of this Court and the case of the present applicant is
identical to that of the petitioner of B.A. No.168 of 2026, namely,
Jayant Tarachand Annapurne therefore, on the ground of parity
the prayer for bail of the present applicant is fit to be allowed.
9. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that this Court is
conscious of the settled position of law that the principle of parity
is to be applied if the case on fact is exactly similar then only the
principle of parity in the matter of passing order is to be passed
but if there is difference in between the facts then the principle of
parity is not to be applied. But it is equally settled position of law
that there cannot be any negative equality, meaning thereby, that
if a co-accused person has been granted bail without
consideration of the factual aspect or on the ground said to be not
proper, then, merely because the co-accused person has been
directed to be released on bail, the same will not attract the
principle of parity on the principle that Article 14 envisages
positive equality and not negative equality, reference in this
regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director
Directorate of Enforcement (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486. For
ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
"19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the
guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article
14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity
has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of
Page | 3
2026:JHHC:7874
individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial
forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or
superior court for repeating or multiplying the same
irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong
order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or
irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage
conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the
court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could
not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such
wrong decision."
10. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise
its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality
of circumstances before granting bail and by only simple saying
that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to
determine whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity
has been established.
11. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court
has gone through the order dated 16.03.2026 passed in B.A.
No.168 of 2026 and has found that the Co-ordinate Bench while
considering the prayer for bail of one of the co-accused namely
Jayant Tarachand Annapurne has taken into consideration the
allegation made against the said co-accused has allowed the
prayer for bail of the said co-accused, for ready reference the
operative part of the aforesaid order dated 16.03.2026 passed in
B.A. No.168 of 2026 is being quoted as under:
5. Having regard to the allegation made against this
petitioner, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is
languishing in custody since 16.09.2025; I am inclined to
enlarge the Petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the above-named
Page | 4
2026:JHHC:7874
Petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.J.C., II-
cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Ranchi in connection with
Ranchi Cyber P.S. Case No. 91 of 2025.
12. Thus, from the operative part of aforesaid order as quoted
hereinabove it is evident that co-ordinate Bench of this Court
while enlarging the said co-accused on bail has taken into
consideration the allegation alleged against the said co-accused.
13. At this juncture, it requires to refer herein another settled position
of law that Grant of bail though being a discretionary order, but,
however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious
manner and not as a matter of course and, thus, order for bail
bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Therefore, prima
facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be
arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case and,
thus, serious nature of accusations and facts having a bearing in
the case cannot be ignored.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Yadav v. State of
U.P. and Ors. AIR 2022 SC 2514 has observed that the
importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can
never be undermined. There is prima facie need to indicate
reasons particularly in cases of grant or denial of bail where the
accused is charged with a serious offence. The sound reasoning in
a particular case is a reassurance that discretion has been
Page | 5
2026:JHHC:7874
exercised by the decision maker after considering all the relevant
grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
15. This Court is now going to the counter affidavit filed by the state in
order to ascertain that whether the prayer for bail of the present
petitioner/applicant is fit to be allowed or not.
16. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that from paragraph 12
of the Case Diary reveals that the beneficiary bank account
mentioned in the FIR, being Account No. 922020004679287 of
Axis Bank, was found to be registered in the name of Ezoby Online
E-Store, and the registered mobile number linked with the said
account was found to be 9765788214. It is further stated that
upon further perusal and scrutiny of the said bank account, it was
found that on 30.07.2025 an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- and on
31.07.2025 an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- were transferred through
RTGS from the informant's bank account to the aforesaid account
of the co-accused.
17. Further from paragraph 14 of the Case Diary reveals that the
mobile number 9765788214, which is linked with beneficiary
Account No. 922020004679287 of Axis Bank, was, during the
course of investigation, found to be associated with the present
petitioner, namely Ajay Rambharose Walmiki. It has further been
revealed that an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- was
transferred from the bank account of the informant to the account
linked with the said mobile number.
Page | 6
2026:JHHC:7874
18. It has come in the counter affidavit that from paragraph 34 of the
Case Diary reveals that a requisition was made to ICICI Bank
seeking details of the bank account linked with mobile number
8766800354, which was found to be associated with the email ID
of Ezoby Online E-Store, the registered owner of beneficiary
Account No. 922020004679287 of Axis Bank. It is further stated
that upon receipt of the said details and on perusal thereof, it was
found that the aforesaid mobile number 8766800354 is linked
with ICICI Bank Account No. 202701502515, which stands
registered in the name of the petitioner, namely Ajay Rambharose
Walmiki. Further from paragraph 93 of the Case Diary reveals that
the confessional statement of the petitioner was recorded during
the course of investigation, wherein he has admitted his
involvement in the alleged offence.
19. It has come on record that the SIM card recovered from the
possession of the petitioner was found to be linked with the
beneficiary bank account, and the other mobile number also
recovered from his possession was found to be linked with the
email ID associated with the said beneficiary account.
20. Thus, from the aforesaid, prima-facie the culpability of the present
applicant in the alleged commission of crime appears to be true
therefore, taking into consideration the culpability of the
petitioner this Court is of the considered view that present
application is not fit to be allowed.
21. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected.
Page | 7
2026:JHHC:7874
22. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not
prejudice the case of the appellant in course of trial and view as
expressed by this Court is only limited to the instant bail
application.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
18th March, 2026
Samarth
Page | 8
