Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 08 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Ankit Dubey (aged ~28, son of Umesh Kr. Dubey, resident of Khandbari Wahnia, District Chandoli, UP) versus State of Jharkhand.
  • Case No.: B.A. No. 8260 of 2026; linked to Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No. 34 of 2026.
  • Charges: Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 316(2), 318(4), 319(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.
  • Custody: Petitioner in custody since 10 April 2026; charge framed on 27 August 2026.
  • Trust involvement: Petitioner is treasurer of Maa Savitri Trust; brother is trustee. On 07 February 2026 brother requested bank to close the trust account citing fraudulent activity and lodged a cyber‑crime complaint after losing his SIM on 06 February 2026 (acknowledgement dated 07 February 2026). The trust account was hacked and large sums transferred.
  • RBI circular: Places burden of proving liability for unauthorized electronic banking transactions on the bank; customer liability is zero.
  • State’s allegation: Between 01 January 2026 and 06 February 2026, transactions totalling Rs 4.41 crore and odd were made from the trust account, leaving only a meagre amount on 06 February 2026. Petitioner, his brother and co‑accused allegedly coordinated the cyber‑crime; case characterized as organized crime and digital arrest of an informant.
  • Evidence: Statement of account of Maa Savitri Trust placed on record showing huge transaction on 06 February 2026; complaint lodged by brother on 07 February 2026.
  • Informant details: Sunil Kumar Bhartiya received calls on 29‑30 January 2026 about a SIM purchased on 24 December 2025 using Aadhaar from Mumbai; informed of a FIR in Mumbai and a scam involving Rs 538 crore. He was told CBI would investigate, then digitally arrested and cheated of Rs 80,09,974. CDR report shows accused in regular contact during the fraud.
  • Additional allegation: Different bank account numbers used for illegal transactions; CDR report links accused to Maa Savitri Trust account; petitioner alleged to have participated in digitally arresting the informant.

Final Outcome

  • The Court, considering the organized‑crime nature, the large sum involved, and the allegations of digital arrest and fraud, refused the bail application and ordered the petitioner to remain in custody. The order is to be communicated to the concerned court via email or fax.

Topics: Cyber Crime, Banking Fraud