High Court of Jharkhand grants bail in cyber-crime FIR after 10 months’ custody, affirming established custodial-duration ground for bail; binding on subordinate courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | B.A. No. 5491 of 2025 of Arvind Kumar Mandal alias Arbind Kumar Mandal Vs The State of Jharkhand |
| CNR | JHHC010158172025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that prolonged pre-trial custody of about ten months constitutes a relevant consideration in exercising judicial discretion to grant bail. The court observed that where the accused has remained in custody for an extended period, and no arguable prejudice to the prosecution is shown, bail may be granted even in serious charges. The inherent power under CrPC must be exercised to prevent undue hardship arising from long detention before trial. A bail bond with sureties and appropriate conditions suffices to secure the ends of justice. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
| Citations | Neutral Citation: (2025 JHHC 24068) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Court reaffirms that extended pre-trial detention (here, ten months) is a relevant ground for granting bail, even in cyber-crime cases involving multiple offences.
- A previous withdrawal of bail application does not bar reconsideration if custodial duration becomes excessive.
- Bail may be granted with moderate sureties and personal bond without prejudice to the merits of the prosecution.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Parties were heard on the bail application under inherent powers of the High Court.
- The court noted the petitioner’s continued custody of approximately ten months since arrest on 17.10.2024.
- Seriousness of charges was weighed against prolonged detention and lack of trial progress.
- Recognizing the preventive purpose of bail, the court exercised discretion under CrPC to grant interim liberty.
- Bail directed on furnishing a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner has been in custody for about ten months since his arrest on 17.10.2024.
- Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial progress amounts to undue hardship warranting bail.
State (Opposite Party)
- No specific objection recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
Arrested on 17.10.2024 during a police raid on confidential information that cyber-criminals had assembled near Mohanpur High School, the petitioner was found in possession of a mobile phone. He was charged under multiple sections of the B.N.S. Act 2023 and the I.T. Act in Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 111/2024, Deoghar, and has remained in custody for nearly ten months. His earlier bail application was withdrawn on 18.03.2025. On 18.08.2025, the High Court considered his prolonged detention and granted bail.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections invoked: 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) & 61 of the B.N.S. Act 2023; Sections 66B, 66C, 66D & 84(C) of the I.T. Act.
- No new statutory interpretation; court applied established principles of CrPC inherent jurisdiction to grant bail based on custodial duration.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms existing law on bail and prolonged detention as a ground for interim release.
Citations
- Neutral Citation: (2025 JHHC 24068), paras 1–6.