Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 15 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Nikhil Kumar, 27 years, son of Ashok Kumar, residing at Surya Nagar, Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
  • Opposite Party: The State of Jharkhand.
  • Case Number: B.A. No. 9034 of 2026.
  • Charges: Offences under Section 111(2)(b), 111(4), 316(2), 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
  • Custody: Petitioner has been in custody since 31 May 2026 in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 05 of 2026 registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, District Ramgarh.
  • Alleged Modus Operandi: The informant’s SIM card was allegedly used in the petitioner’s phone on 06‑12‑2025 between 7:32 PM and 7:38 PM to obtain an OTP for activating the informant’s bank account. The petitioner’s mobile number (8434375361) was used to activate online banking.
  • Financial Impact: A total of Rs 43,00,000 was siphoned off between 11‑12‑2025 and 03‑01‑2026 from the informant’s bank account (Account No. 60555309928) of Bank of Maharashtra.
  • Co‑accused: Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Yadav (cousin of neighbor Dani Yadav) allegedly obtained the informant’s Aadhar, SIM, passbook, and ATM card, handed them to the petitioner, and facilitated the fraud. Vikash was arrested, gave a confessional statement, and admitted involvement.
  • Other Details: The informant’s account was blocked after the fraud was discovered on 13‑01‑2026. Complaints have been lodged in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, and other states. CCTV footage of ATM withdrawals in Jamshedpur was collected.
  • Petitioner’s Confession: The petitioner admitted that after using the SIM to obtain OTP, he handed over the ATM and mobile to a third person (Vikrant Singh alias Biku) and subsequently destroyed both mobiles.
  • Investigative Findings: Investigation material links the petitioner, Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Yadav, and other co‑accused to the organized cyber fraud. The court noted risk of evidence tampering if bail were granted.

Final Outcome

  • The bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected. The order directs that a copy be communicated to the concerned court via fax/e‑mail.

Topics: Cyber Fraud, Bail Denial