Tosib Ansari v. State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
- Neutral citation
- 2026:JHHC:10584
Outcome
Bail granted
The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 3(5), 111(2)(b), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
- Information Technology Act, 2000
- Telecommunication Act, 2023 s. 42(3)(e)
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 2
Judgment
For the Petitioner For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl.P.P. --- : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate --- 09/13.04.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.10.2025 in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 65 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 111(2)(b), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and under Section 66 (B), (C), (D) of the Information Technology Act and under Section 42(3)(e) of the Telecommunication Act, 2023 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Jamtara.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge has been framed on 26.02.2026 and during investigation, as per his best of knowledge, no victim has come to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He has also submitted that two mobiles and two SIM cards is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that co-accused Siraj Ansari and Sahabuddin Ansari have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate benches of this Court in B.A. No. 11772 of 2025 vide order dated 11.03.2026 and in B.A. No. 11768 of 2025 vide order dated 23.03.2026.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the bail 1 application of another co-accused namely Aslam Ansari has been rejected in B.A. No. 11682 of 2025 vide order dated 29.01.2026.
The bail application of the co-accused Aslam Ansari was rejected on the ground that he has criminal antecedent of similar nature vide Jamtara P.S. Case No. 01.2024. The present petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that similarly situated co-accused has been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate benches of this Court and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and as the petitioner is in custody since 24.10.2025, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge Cyber Crime, Jamtara in connection with Jamtara Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 65 of 2025 on the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below.
Operative part
The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 2
Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
13.04.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-14.04.2026 3
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 3(5), 111(2)(b), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2); Information Technology Act, 2000; Telecommunication Act, 2023 — s. 42(3)(e).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.