MOHAMMAD SHAHID ALIAS SHAHID HUSSAIN ALIAS MD. SHAHID vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - LILY SAHAY — B.A./3731/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 64 (I),35I(2),(3),352,BNS,66(c),66(E), 67A,IT,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 05th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010128252026
Filing Number
B.A./8298/2026
Filing Date
16-Apr-2026
Registration No
B.A./3731/2026
Registration Date
30-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Coram
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
Information Technology Act, 2000 ( 208 )
Sub-Category
Cyber Crime ( 15 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
05-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Rejected
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MOHAMMAD SHAHID ALIAS SHAHID HUSSAIN ALIAS MD. SHAHID
Adv. CHANDAN KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - LILY SAHAY
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-May-2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF
Case Summary: The Jharkhand High Court rejected Mohammad Shahid's bail application in a cyber crime case involving charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Information Technology Act. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary found that since charges were already framed, two key prosecution witnesses (victim and her son) had testified supporting the case, and a previous bail application had been rejected on merits, bail enlargement was not warranted. The court directed the State to promptly produce remaining witnesses for trial resuming on 18.05.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-May-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
-
16-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. B.A./3731/2026
Case Summary: The Jharkhand High Court rejected Mohammad Shahid's bail application in a cyber crime case involving charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Information Technology Act. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary found that since charges were already framed, two key prosecution witnesses (victim and her son) had testified supporting the case, and a previous bail application had been rejected on merits, bail enlargement was not warranted. The court directed the State to promptly produce remaining witnesses for trial resuming on 18.05.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts