Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Information Technology Act, 2000

335 judgments · newest first · showing 201–335

Amirullah Ansari @ AlamversusThe State of Bihar

REJECTED

Amirullah Ansari was arrested on 22 April 2024 in connection with FIR No. 07/2023 under IPC sections 417, 354(c) and 376, and IT Act sections 66(E) and 67(A). The petitioner had earlier sought bail, which was rejected twice and later withdrawn. On the present application, the trial court report …

Vivek KumarversusThe State of Bihar

ALLOWED

Vivek Kumar applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in Cyber P.S. Case No. 132 of 2025, which alleged offences under several sections of the B.N.S. and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution’s case is based on a complaint on the Pratibimb portal linking a mobile …

AYUSH PATELversusSTATE OF U.P.

Ayush Patel applied for bail in a cyber‑fraud case (Cr. No. 17 of 2025) involving alleged opening of fake bank accounts and transfer of Rs 1 crore, charged under IPC sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and IT Act section 66D. The applicant was not named in the FIR; his alleged involvement was derived from …

MOHAMMAD AADILversusSTATE OF U.P.

Mohammad Aadil applied for bail before the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9295 of 2026, seeking release on charges under IPC sections 302, 64, 123 and IT Act section 66E. The applicant alleged that the case was fabricated, that the alleged victim had falsely …

Sanni KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Sanni Kumar, was arrested on 17 November 2025 for alleged cyber fraud involving a loss of Rs.129,273 and charged under Sections 303(2), 319(2), 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 61(6)(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He claimed innocence, …

Akash KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

Akash Kumar was arrested during a police raid on 22 November 2025, during which two mobile phones and Rs.2,000 were seized from him. He was charged under multiple sections of the B.N.S and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner pleaded innocence, asserting that …

Bipul Singh @ Vipul SinghversusThe State of Bihar

PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)

The petitioners, Bipul Singh and Angad Singh, were involved in a bail application arising from a 2025 case concerning alleged sexual assault, video harassment, and assault on a victim's father. Bipul Singh (petitioner 1) withdrew his bail request, which the court dismissed as withdrawn. Angad Singh …

Aditya KumarversusThe State of Bihar

REJECTED

The petitioner, Aditya Kumar, was arrested on 18 October 2025 in connection with a cyber‑fraud case (Case No. 174 of 2025) after a large cache of cash, bank documents, foreign currency, gold, silver and electronic devices was recovered from the residence of his co‑accused, Abhishek Kumar. Both the …

VINUBHAI KURJIBHAI JADVANI THRO KISHORBHAI KURJIBHAI JADVANIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Vinubhai Kurjibhai Jadvani was preventively detained on 07.03.2026 under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a ‘cyber offender’. He challenged the detention, arguing that the alleged cyber offences under the Information Technology Act did not affect public order. The State …

RAJENDRA BAGIRATH SINGHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Allowed

The applicants, Rajendra Bagirath Singh and Namdev Vishnu Kale, were arrested in connection with a cyber‑fraud case involving a fraudulent WhatsApp link that led to a loss of over Rs. 43 crore. They sought bail, arguing that most co‑accused (10 out of 14) had already been released and that their …

NAMDEV VISHNU KALEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Allowed

The High Court considered bail applications filed by Rajendra Singh and Namdev Kale, accused in a cyber‑fraud case (CR No. 761 of 2024) involving alleged phishing via a WhatsApp link that led to a fraudulent transfer of Rs 1 lakh and a total loss of over Rs 43 crores. The offences were alleged under …

Pankaj KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar, was named in an FIR for allegedly taking a nude video of the informant under the false pretext of marriage, alleged to have occurred in February 2021. The complaint was filed on 9 September 2024, resulting in a three‑and‑a‑half‑year delay, and the petitioner contended …

AMAN AGARWALversusSTATE OF U.P.

Aman Agarwal was arrested in connection with a cyber‑crime case (Crime No. 19 of 2025) under Sections 318(4), 336, 338, 340 of the BNS and Section 66‑D of the Information Technology Act. His first bail application was rejected, and he has been in custody since 29 June 2025. In a second bail plea, he …

AshwinideepversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Ashwinideep, was accused of multiple offences including assault, torture, and dowry harassment under various sections of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Information Technology Act. He filed an application for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in …

Vakil JhaversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner sought bail after the police alleged his involvement in a pistol‑waving incident at an orchestra program, invoking Section 25(9) of the Arms Act and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. The allegation arose from a social‑media video and an informant’s identification of the …

RIZVAN S/O ABDULRAJAK SHAIKHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Rizvan was preventively detained on 27 January 2026 under Section 2(ba) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 as a "cyber offender". He challenged the detention, arguing that the authority had no material showing any disturbance to public order and that the order was passed …

Dinesh Pandit @ KhushiversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL REJECTED

The petitioner, Dinesh Pandit, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case alleging he created and disseminated obscene photographs and videos of an informant on social media platforms. The prosecution alleged violations of several sections of the B.N.S. and Sections 66 and 67(a) of the …

Md. RahbarversusThe State of Bihar

ALLOWED

The petitioner, Md. Rahbar, was arrested during a police raid on a hotel suspected of being a hub for cyber fraud and charged under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and the Information Technology Act. He contended that only a mobile phone was seized from him and no …

Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Singh @ Gunnu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Amit Kumar, was arrested in connection with a cyber‑fraud case (Saran Cyber P.S. Case No.75 of 2025) alleging that he helped open a bank account using the personal details of an informant’s son, which was later used for fraudulent transactions. The petitioner argued that the account …

Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL REJECTED

The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, was implicated in a cyber‑fraud case where an informant alleged that Rs. 60,000 was transferred to the petitioner's account on 20‑08‑2024. The FIR charges him under sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act and sections 303(2), 319(2) and 318(4) of the …

Ankit Singh @ Ankit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

Ankit Singh was arrested in connection with a cyber‑offence (Sections 66(E), 67 and 67(B) of the Information Technology Act) for allegedly making a video of the informant’s daughter viral after befriending her on Instagram. The petition argued that the FIR did not allege any sexual harassment, none …

Aasif @ Prince @ Aasif Javed @ Assif JavedversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Aasif Javed, applied for regular bail in a case involving alleged cyber‑fraud offences under sections 303(2), 319(2), 318(4), 317(2) and 317(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and sections 66C, 66D and 84B of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution alleged that Irfan …

Rajiv Ranjan @ FantusversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioners, Ranjan Kumar and Rajiv Ranjan @ Fantus, were arrested following a cyber‑crime raid conducted by the Cyber Crime Police on 2‑3 August 2025, and charged under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. They applied for bail, …

Ishu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Ishu Kumar, was arrested in connection with a cyber‑crime case alleging offences under IPC sections 354(C) and 509 and IT Act sections 66C, 66E, 67 and 67A, for allegedly making a joint photograph of himself and the informant’s minor daughter viral on social media. The informant, the …

XYZversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Allowed

The applicant, Miss XYZ, filed an interim application seeking to have her name masked as "XYZ" in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3470 of 2019, where the FIR against her had been quashed. The FIR, originally filed under IPC sections 408, 409, 420, 34 and IT Act sections 66, 66B, alleged that her father …

Sandeep Kumar SahversusThe State of Bihar

ALLOWED

The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar Sah, was arrested in connection with a cyber‑crime case involving alleged SIM‑porting and unauthorized withdrawal of Rs 35,000 from an informant’s bank account, for which he was accused under sections 303(2) and 318(4) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and …

HareramversusThe State of Bihar

ALLOWED

Hareram was arrested in a cyber fraud case (Nalanda Cyber P.S. Case No. 101 of 2025) and charged under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The police raid recovered three bikes and a mobile phone, and two complaints were …

Ashik JamalversusThe State of Bihar

ALLOWED

Ashik Jamal applied for regular bail in a case registered under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act for alleged cyber fraud involving a fake Instagram ID and a loss of Rs.1.75 lakh. The prosecution’s case is based mainly on …

HARE RAM YADAVversusThe State of Bihar

ALLOWED

The Patna High Court heard six appeals arising from a 2016 murder case in which the appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) and 149 of the IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act. The prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence, mobile call‑detail records (CDRs) without Section …

RAHUL KUMAR @ FURRI @ FUGGIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

ALLOWED

The Patna High Court heard six criminal appeals arising from a 2016 murder case in Jehanabad where the appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) and 149 of the IPC. The prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence, mobile call‑detail records (CDRs) without Section 65B …

Abhishek Kumar JhaversusThe State of Bihar

REJECTED

The petitioner, Abhishek Kumar Jha, was charged with cheating the informant and withdrawing Rs 30,00,000 from her bank account, alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 303(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner claimed the allegations were false, …

Sachin AgrawalversusThe State of Bihar

DISMISSED

Sachin Agrawal was charged with cheating Rs.1.95 crore through a cyber fraud scheme, alleged to have transferred the money to accounts of accomplices and deleted transaction records. He faces charges under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the B.N.S. and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information …

Bablu ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL REJECTED

The petitioner, Bablu Chaudhary, was named in an FIR for alleged fraud and related offences under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and the Information Technology Act. During a police raid, cash of Rs. 1,35,000, ATM cards, passbooks, and cheque books were recovered from his …

KANHAIYA ALIAS KANHAIYA LALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The revisionist Kanhaiya challenged his summons under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., arguing he was only a witness in the FIR and lacked any mens rea for the alleged offences. The FIR, lodged on 07.06.2024, accused Pujari Mahant Hemraj Suryavanshi of sexual assault under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and …

Tanveer AlamversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL REJECTED

Tanveer Alam applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a cyber‑crime case alleging that he uploaded and shared pornographic images and videos of a one‑year‑old child, offences punishable under Sections 67A and 67B of the Information Technology Act and Section 14 of the POCSO Act. The …

Mandeep KumarversusThe State of Bihar

DISMISSED

Mandeep Kumar was arrested in connection with a cyber‑fraud case (Vaishali Cyber P.S. Case No. 10 of 2025) involving multiple offences under the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and the Information Technology Act. He applied for regular bail for the second time, having been in custody since 14 April …

Venkatesh G @ Bankatesh GversusThe State of Bihar

DISMISSED

The petitioner, Venkatesh G, was arrested in a cyber‑fraud case registered as Cyber P.S. Case No.21 of 2024. He was charged under several provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (sections 303(2), 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340 and 61(2)) and the Information Technology Act …

Shashi Kumar @ Shashi Kumar GiriversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

Shashi Kumar was arrested for allegedly preparing an obscene video of an informant during a video call and uploading it to Instagram, violating several sections of the BNS and the Information Technology Act. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, asserting that his Instagram …

Jitendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Jitendra Kumar, was arrested in connection with a theft case involving stolen mobile phones and a motorcycle, charged under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 317(5), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The prosecution alleged …

Niraj Kumar @ LaljiversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Niraj Kumar, was arrested in connection with a cyber fraud case (Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 519 of 2025) and charged under several sections of the B.N.S. and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The prosecution alleged that two mobile phones and customer data recovered from the …

MANU KUMAR @ MONU KUMAR @ MANNU KUMARversusThe State of Bihar

ALLOWED

Manu Kumar was convicted by a Special POCSO Court for rape under Section 376D IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act based solely on the victim’s testimony. On appeal, the Patna High Court examined the victim’s age, noting that she declared herself 18 years old and a medical opinion placed her …

Roshan KumarversusThe State of Bihar

DISMISSED

The petitioner, Roshan Kumar, applied for regular bail in a cyber‑crime case (Saharsa Cyber P.S. Case No. 33 of 2024) involving offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the IPC, Sections 66, 66(C), 66(D) of the IT Act and Section 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act. The trial …

Naimullah Ansari @ Nimullah AnsariversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL REJECTED

The petitioner, Naimullah Ansari, was implicated in a cyber fraud case involving illegal withdrawal of funds, with other accused naming him as an associate. The FIR cites offences under several sections of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner argued …

Uttam Kumar @ Utam KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The High Court considered two anticipatory bail petitions filed by Uttam Kumar and Amit Kumar, who were named in FIR No. 242 of 2025 for alleged cyber‑fraud offences under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. Police raids recovered debit cards, mobiles, cash and …

Amit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The High Court considered two anticipatory bail petitions filed by Uttam Kumar and Amit Kumar, who were named in FIR No. 242 of 2025 for alleged cyber‑fraud offences under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. Police had raided the house of co‑accused Gautam Kumar …

Dharmendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL REJECTED

The petitioner, Dharmendra Kumar, was named in an FIR for alleged cyber fraud and related offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. He applied for anticipatory bail, contending that his involvement was inferred solely from a co-accused's statement and …

Bipul Kumar @ Vipul KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Bipul Kumar, was arrested in connection with a cyber‑fraud case (Cyber P.S. Case No. 51 of 2024) alleging receipt of Rs 3,99,000 and charged under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 66/66(D) of the Information Technology Act. He was not named in the …

Murari KumarversusThe State of Bihar

ALLOWED

Murari Kumar was arrested in connection with a cyber‑fraud case (Cyber P.S. Case No. 163 of 2025) after a mobile phone and a six‑page handwritten copy were seized from him. He was charged under several sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The …

Binayak BhalchandraversusThe State of Bihar and another

DISPOSED

The petitioner, Binayak Bhalchandra, filed an application seeking to quash the order dated 17 September 2018 that had taken cognizance of alleged offences under Sections 292 and 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act. The High Court examined …

AMIT KUMARversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Amit Kumar, was implicated in a fraud case (Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 750 of 2023) alleging cheating of Rs. 14,77,169 deposited with Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance. He contended that the alleged illegal withdrawal was executed using his desktop computer by co‑accused colleagues, not …

Kaushal KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Kaushal Kumar, was arrested in connection with a cyber‑fraud case alleging that he helped operate a fake entity impersonating Jana‑Sri Microfinance Ltd. to cheat rural women, with charges under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and the Information Technology …

Ajay KumarversusThe State of Bihar

DISMISSED

The petitioner, Ajay Kumar, applied for regular bail in a case registered under the Madhubani Cyber Police Station for alleged offences under sections of the BNS and the Information Technology Act, relating to illegal online betting. He claimed innocence, stating he was not arrested at the scene, no …

AVINASH DNYANOBA BAKALIKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposed Off

The applicant, Avinash Dnyanoba Bakalikar, sought regular bail for offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to an alleged fraud of Rs.19.80 lakh. The prosecution alleged that the …

Gautam KumarversusThe State of Bihar

ALLOWED

The petitioner, Gautam Kumar, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a cyber‑crime case (Aurangabad Cyber P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025) involving offences under several sections of the B.N.S. and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution’s case is …

Vishal Kumar DasversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

Vishal Kumar Das was arrested in connection with a cyber‑fraud case (Motihari Cyber P.S. Case No. 157 of 2025) alleging offences under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and the Information Technology Act. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that no …

Indu Kumar Thakur @ Indrajeet Thakur @ Indrajeet SarmaversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioners, Indu Kumar Thakur and Sonali Sah, were arrested in connection with a case under Sections 66D and 66E of the Information Technology Act for allegedly making private photographs posted by the informant on Instagram go viral. The informant contended that the petitioners captured and …

NITTEN LAXMANRAO CHAVANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposed Off

The applicants, Nitten Laxmanrao Chavan and Sarfraj Ahmed Ulfatali Shaikh, filed anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre‑arrest bail for offences under Sections 316(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections …

ANANDI ARJUN YADHAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposed Off

The High Court considered two bail applications arising from the same cyber‑fraud case in which the applicants were alleged to have hacked a bank account and withdrawn Rs.1,95,419. The offences were charged under Sections 319(2), 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and …

PINKY ANANDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The petitioner, Pinky Anand, filed a criminal writ petition alleging harassment on her social media page by unknown individuals on 14 May 2024, with objectionable photographs posted. She sought addition of several provisions of the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and …

Aslam AhmadversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Aslam Ahmad, was arrested on 8 September 2025 in connection with FIR No. 1479 of 2025 alleging offences under the Bihar Nagarik Suraksha Act, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, including sections relating to assault, criminal intimidation and fraudulent use of electronic …

MS. NIDHI CHAUDHARY @ NIDHI MALLICKversusSHRI VIKAS CHAUDHARY

The appellant, Nidhi Chaudhary, married Vikas Chaudhary on 22 October 2023, which was a second marriage for both parties. The respondent alleged that the appellant's earlier marriage to Naru Gopal Singh had not been dissolved and obtained an ex‑parte judgment on 28 October 2024 declaring the …

RASHMI SALUJAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Dismissed

Dr. Rashmi Saluja, former Executive Chairman of Religare Enterprises Ltd., challenged the registration of FIR No.355/2024 and the ECIR/MBZO‑I/27/2024 issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act (PMLA). She argued that the FIR was barred by special statutes …

Akash MukharjeeversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL REJECTED

The petitioner, Akash Mukherjee, applied for regular bail in a cyber‑fraud case where he was alleged to have received large sums of money transferred through his bank account after being digitally arrested via WhatsApp. The FIR, registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 …

Ravindra SahversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Ravindra Sah, sought bail after being implicated in a criminal case (PS Case No. 291 of 2025) for offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. He contended that the specific allegation of threatening and sending an obscene video pertained …

Om Prakash KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Om Prakash Kumar, was arrested in a cyber‑fraud case (Motihari Cyber P.S. Case No. 57 of 2025) involving offences under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and the Information Technology Act. He claims innocence, asserting that his name appears only in a …

AKASH SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. for Akash Sharma, who was charged with offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66‑D of the Information Technology Act for alleged cyber‑fraud involving a loss of Rs 3.16 crore. The …

Chiranjivi Singh @ Chiran Jeebi SinghversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

Chiranjivi Singh was arrested in a case alleging that he sent obscene videos and photographs to a woman’s mobile phone, demanded Rs 10 lakhs, and received a gold chain worth Rs 2 lakhs. The petitioner claimed the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was filed after a financial dispute. He …

SUBHRANSH NAYAKversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposed Off

The High Court considered the bail application of Subhransh Nayak, accused in a fraud case involving alleged cheating of investors amounting to Rs.1,22,28,031 and charges under IPC sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34, IT Act section 66-D and MPID Act sections 3 and 4. The prosecution argued …

Vikash Kunal @ Vikash Kumar @ PappuversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The Patna High Court considered an application for anticipatory bail filed by Vikash Kunal, who was implicated in a complaint alleging fraud, cheating, criminal breach of trust and violations of the IT Act for promising a government tender to the complainant, receiving large sums of money, issuing a …

Vikram KumarversusThe State of Bihar

ALLOWED

Vikram Kumar was arrested in connection with a cyber‑crime case (Cyber P.S. Case No. 21 of 2025) alleging offences under several sections of the B.N.S., 2023 and the Information Technology Act, including fraud, threats and illegal access. The prosecution alleged that the accused were operating from …

Amar KumarversusThe State of Bihar

ALLOWED

Amar Kumar was arrested in connection with a robbery‑assault case (Pandarak P.S. Case No. 98 of 2025) involving multiple offences under the B.N.S. and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution alleged that he participated in a gang assault, theft of cash and cards, and illegal …

Parvez AhmedversusThe State of Bihar

ALLOWED

Petitioner Parvez Ahmed was arrested in connection with offences under sections 319(2) and 318(4) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act after two mobile phones recovered from him allegedly contained QR codes and communications with a person …

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

Vijay Kumar Yadav was named in a cyber‑crime FIR alleging offences under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Information Technology Act, based primarily on a confessional statement of a co‑accused and a raid that recovered material from others but not from him. The petitioner contended he …

Navin Kumar @ BhonuversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Navin Kumar, applied for regular bail in a cyber‑related case (Cyber P.S. No.165 of 2025) involving multiple serious offences under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and the Information Technology Act. The prosecution alleged that during a raid on 21‑Oct‑2025, the petitioner’s …

Mohammad Aman @ Md. AmanversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Md Aman, was arrested in connection with a cyber case alleging that he took Rs. 35,83,000 from an informant for an investment scheme and returned only Rs. 11,92,600. He is charged under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 66 of the …

Pardesi Tanti @ Jay Prakash Tanti @ Jai Prakash TantiversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

Petitioner Pardesi Tanti was arrested in connection with offences under the Arms Act (Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26, 35 and 25(9)) and the Information Technology Act (Section 66(C)) and has been in custody since 17‑08‑2025. He applied for regular bail, contending that co‑accused persons facing similar …

Raushan KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

Petitioner Raushan Kumar sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a cyber‑crime case (Nalanda Cyber P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025) based primarily on the confessional statement of co‑accused Amit Raj (aka Murari Kumar). The FIR alleged offences under several sections of the BNS, 2023 and the …

Arvind Kumar SahversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

Arvind Kumar Sah applied for bail in a criminal case (PS Case No. 318 of 2025) alleging offences under sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 111(3), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution alleged that a police raid at a hotel recovered several ATM …

Ajay Kumar SahversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Ajay Kumar Sah, was arrested in connection with a case registered on 22.08.2025 for offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act. He pleaded that he has no prior criminal record, the investigation against him was completed, and the …

Pintu Kumar @ Pintu RajbanshiversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Pintu Kumar, was named in an FIR for alleged cyber fraud under several provisions of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The investigation uncovered no electronic trail or direct incriminating material against him; his alleged involvement stemmed …

Ajit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Ajit Kumar, was named in an FIR for alleged cyber fraud under several provisions of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The prosecution’s case rests mainly on a disclosure by a co‑accused, with no electronic trail or other incriminating material …

SUMIT ANAND S/O RAMLALA RAMNUGRAH JHAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

The High Court of Gujarat considered an application for regular bail filed by Sumit Anand under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a FIR alleging cyber‑fraud and money‑laundering offences under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and the Information …

MAYUR SUNIL ANECHAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposed Off

The High Court considered two bail applications filed by Mayur Sunil Anecha and Akshay Sadashiv Galave, who were arrested in a cyber‑fraud case (Crime No. 25 of 2025) involving alleged conversion of a Rs 5 lakh fraud amount into cryptocurrency. The prosecution alleged that the accused were aware …

Abhimanyu Kumar @ BantiversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Abhimanyu Kumar, was arrested in connection with a cyber‑crime case alleging offences under Section 354 of the IPC and Sections 67(A), 67(B) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had taken objectionable photographs of the …

Pawan Kumar Purve @ Pawan Kumar PurveyversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL GRANTED

The petitioner, Pawan Kumar Purve, was arrested in connection with a cyber‑PS case alleging forgery of fishing IDs, unlawful alteration of Aadhaar details and illegal collection of personal documents while operating a Common Service Center. He faced charges under several sections of the Bihar …

Sumit Ranjan @ Sumit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

BAIL REJECTED

The petitioner, Sumit Ranjan, sought pre‑arrest bail after the police registered a case alleging offences under sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the BNS and sections 65, 66, 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, in collusion with co‑accused, …

DR. SOHAIL MALIKversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2025 INSC 1415Dismissed

The case involved an IAS officer (the aggrieved woman) who alleged that an IRS officer (the appellant) sexually harassed her at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. She filed a complaint under the POSH Act before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of her own department, the Department of Food and Public …

SAMIULLAHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 1292Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 amendments that introduced sub‑rules (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19, which made the production of jamabandi or holding‑allotment proof a condition precedent for registering sale or gift documents. The High Court of Patna dismissed the writ …

AKHTAR ALI @ ALI AKHTAR @ SHAMIM @ RAJA USTADversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 1097Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for the rape and murder of a minor girl based on circumstantial evidence, a disputed 'last seen' theory, alleged motive of lust, and DNA forensic reports. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the motive, the reliability of the last seen testimony, and the …

WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC.versusANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2025 INSC 656Appeal(s) allowed

The Wikimedia Foundation, as a defendant in a defamation suit filed by ANI Media, appealed a High Court order directing it to delete Wikipedia pages and discussion threads that commented on the court's proceedings, alleging that the order violated its freedom of speech and the sub judice principle. …

PRAGYA PRASUN & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 599Disposed off

The petitioners, including acid‑attack survivors with facial disfigurements and a blind individual, challenged the mandatory digital KYC/e‑KYC/video‑KYC procedures for being inaccessible and discriminatory. They argued that requirements such as capturing a live photograph and performing a liveness …

KANISHK SINHA & ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 278Dismissed

The appellants, a husband and wife, were charged in two FIRs (2010 and 2011) for offences under the IPC and the IT Act. They contended that the second FIR was based on a complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC that was not accompanied by an affidavit, thereby violating the Supreme Court’s …

RINKU BAHETIversusSANDESH SHARDA

2024 INSC 1014Disposed off

The petitioner-wife Rinku Baheti filed a transfer petition seeking to move a pending divorce suit to the Pune Family Court and opposed the respondent-husband Sandesh Sharda's application under Article 142(1) for a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The parties …

HDFC BANK LTD.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2024 INSC 807Appeal(s) allowed

The Income Tax Department ordered HDFC Bank to stop operation of certain lockers and accounts, but later revoked the order only for the accounts, leading bank officials to mistakenly allow a locker to be operated. The department filed a complaint and an FIR was registered against the bank and its …

JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE & ANR.versusS. HARISH & ORS.

2024 INSC 716Disposed off

The case arose from an FIR filed in 2020 alleging that the accused, S. Harish, had downloaded and stored child pornographic videos on his mobile phone. The investigation recovered two such videos and a chargesheet was filed under Section 15(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act …

APOORVA ARORA & ANR. ETC.versusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

2024 INSC 223Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who created and acted in the web‑series “College Romance”, were charged with publishing obscene and sexually explicit material under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act after a complaint that an episode titled “Happily F****d Up” contained vulgar expletives. The …

BHAGWAN SINGHversusDILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 761Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal against a Rajasthan High Court order that granted bail to three accused in a gang‑rape case involving a 15‑year‑old girl. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 376D, 384, 506 IPC, Sections 3‑6 POCSO Act, Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act and Section 66 IT Act, with the …

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusADITYA TRIPATHI

2023 INSC 531Appeal(s) allowed

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigated alleged tampering of e‑tender bids that led to charges under the IPC, IT Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Because those offences are scheduled under the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the ED opened a money‑laundering …

SANJAY DUBEYversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 519Dismissed

The appeal concerned an Inspector, Sanjay Dubey, who was found prima facie guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to ensure DNA testing in a sensitive case involving offences under the IPC, POCSO Act, SC/ST Act and IT Act. While the High Court, hearing a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, …

ANANT THANUR KARMUSEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

2023 INSC 168Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a civil engineer, posted a viral picture of a sitting cabinet minister on Facebook and alleged that police, at the minister’s behest, forcibly took him to the minister’s residence, beat him and threatened him. He filed FIRs (Nos. 119 and 120 of 2020) but the minister was not named in …

ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT LTDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 102Disposed off

Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd, an aggregator for two‑wheeler ride‑pooling, applied for a licence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but the Pune RTO rejected the application for non‑compliance with the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020. While the petition was pending, the Maharashtra …

KAUSHAL KISHORversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2023 INSC 4Reference answered

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016 and Special Leave Petition (Diary) No. 34629 of 2017 were referred to a Constitution Bench to answer five questions concerning the scope of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the enforceability of fundamental rights against non-State actors. The …

SUKHPAL SINGH KHAIRAversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2022 INSC 1252

The appellant was summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the trial of the original co‑accused had concluded with a conviction and sentence on the same day. The Supreme Court examined whether the power to summon under s.319 could be exercised after a …

AROON PURIEversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

2022 INSC 1142Disposed off

The case arose from an India Today article titled “Mission Misconduct” that alleged sexual misconduct and other improprieties by an Indian Foreign Service officer. The officer, after disciplinary action, filed a criminal complaint against the magazine’s Editor‑in‑Chief (A‑1), the article’s author …

MOHAMMED ZUBAIRversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

2022 INSC 736Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition filed by Mohammed Zubair, co‑founder of ALT News, who faced five FIRs in Uttar Pradesh and one in Delhi arising from the same set of tweets. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIRs and, alternatively, their consolidation with the Delhi FIR, along with …

APARNA BHAT & ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2021 INSC 192Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a bail order that required the accused, who was charged with sexual harassment and related offences, to visit the complainant’s house, tie a rakhi, and give gifts as a condition of bail. The Court held that such conditions amount to judicial overreach, compel contact with …

AMITABHA DASGUPTAversusUNITED BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2021 INSC 104Disposed off

Amitabha Dasgupta, a locker holder, complained that United Bank of India had inadvertently broken open his locker despite his rental dues being cleared, and that only two of the seven ornaments he claimed to have deposited were returned. The District Consumer Forum found a deficiency of service and …

AMISH DEVGANversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 682Disposed off

The petitioner, journalist Amish Devgan, hosted a televised debate on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act and described the Sufi saint Pir Hazrat Moinuddin Chishti as an invader, terrorist and robber, leading to seven FIRs in different states under Sections 295A, 153A and 505(2) of the …

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S G S CHATHA RICE MILLS & ANR.

2020 INSC 561Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered whether Notification 5/2019, issued under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act to raise the import duty on goods from Pakistan to 200%, applied retrospectively to bills of entry that had been presented and self‑assessed before the notification was uploaded to the …

IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR.versusIN RE:

2020 INSC 489Directions issued

The Supreme Court, acting suo motu, took cognizance of two tweets posted by advocate Prashant Bhushan that alleged the Chief Justice of India was riding a luxury motorcycle while keeping the Court in "lockdown" and that the Supreme Court had facilitated the destruction of democracy. The Court …

ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKARversusKAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL AND ORS.

2020 INSC 453Dismissed

The appellant, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, was elected to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly but his election was challenged on the ground that two of his nomination papers were filed after the statutory deadline. The High Court relied on video recordings of the Returning Officer's office, produced …

ANURADHA BHASINversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 31Disposed off

The Court examined the Jammu and Kashmir government's orders that shut down mobile, landline, and internet services and imposed Section 144 restrictions on 4‑8‑2019, which the petitioners claimed violated their fundamental rights to free speech, press, and trade. The petitioners sought production of …

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusM/S. VISAKHA INDUSTRIES

2019 INSC 1352Disposed off

The appellant, Google India Private Limited, was summoned under a criminal complaint alleging defamation (IPC ss.120B, 500, 501 r/w s.34) for articles posted in a Google Group hosted by it. It filed a petition under CrPC s.482 seeking to quash the summons, arguing it was not an intermediary and that …

G H P. GOPALKRISHNAN @ DILEEPversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2019 INSC 1303Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, accused in a rape case, sought a cloned copy of the contents of a memory card/pen‑drive that the prosecution intended to rely upon, arguing that the electronic record should be treated as a "document" under the Evidence Act and thus be furnished under Section 207 of the CrPC. The …

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIAversusBHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 1154Leave granted

Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (RJIL) filed an information under the Competition Act, 2002 alleging that the three incumbent dominant operators (Bharti Airtel, Vodafone India and Idea Cellular) and the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) colluded to deny or delay augmentation of Point of …

SWAPNIL TRIPATHIversusSUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2018 INSC 886Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners filed a writ under Article 32 seeking a declaration that Supreme Court proceedings of constitutional and national importance be live‑streamed and that a regulatory framework be established. The Court examined whether live‑streaming is compatible with the constitutional mandate of …

JUSTICE K. S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.)versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 880Disposed off

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, which provides a unique identity number to residents based on biometric and demographic data. The petitioners challenged the Act on grounds of …

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusTASNEEM RIZWAN SIDDIQUEE

2018 INSC 783Leave Granted & Allowed

The police, investigating a case involving illegal sale of call detail records, arrested Rizwan Alam Siddique and obtained a magistrate's order remanding him to police custody until 23 March 2018. His wife, Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee, filed a writ of habeas corpus in the High Court alleging unlawful …

SHAFHI MOHAMMADversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2018 INSC 75

The Supreme Court examined the admissibility of electronic evidence, particularly videography of crime scenes, in the petition Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh. It considered whether a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is mandatory when the party producing the …

TEESTA ATUL SETALVADversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2017 INSC 1239Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the police could lawfully freeze the bank accounts of Teesta Atul Setalvad, Javed Anand and related trusts under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) without prior notice to the account holders. The investigation, stemming from an FIR alleging …

BINOY VISWAMversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 478Disposed off

The petitioners, a group of public‑spirited individuals, challenged the constitutionality of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which makes it mandatory for income‑tax assessees to quote their Aadhaar number while applying for a PAN or filing returns. They argued that the provision violated …

TARUN TYAGIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2017 INSC 1261Appeal(s) allowed

Tarun Tyagi was charged with stealing the source code of the 'Quick Recovery' software and selling it through his own company. The CBI seized three hard disks (Q‑2, Q‑9, Q‑20) containing the alleged source code. Tyagi sought copies of these disks under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure …

SHARAT BABU DIGUMARTIversusGOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

2016 INSC 1131Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sharad Babu Digumarti, was charged under IPC Sections 292 and 294 and IT Act Section 67 for alleged possession of obscene material in electronic form. He was discharged of the IT Act charge but the trial court framed a charge under IPC Section 292, which the High Court upheld. The …

DR. RINI JOHAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.

2016 INSC 441Case Allowed

Dr. Rini Johar, a doctor, and a senior advocate were arrested in November 2012 on a FIR alleging fraud under IPC sections 420 and 34 and the Information Technology Act. The arrest was carried out without complying with Sections 41 and 41‑A of the CrPC, nor the D.K. Basu guidelines, and the …

RAMESH RAJAGOPALversusDEVI POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED

2016 INSC 327Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a director of Devi Polymers Private Limited, was prosecuted under IPC sections 409, 468 and 471 and IT Act sections 65 and 66 for allegedly forging a website that portrayed Devi Consultancy Services as a separate entity and for misappropriating funds. The High Court refused to quash …

SHREYA SINGHALversusUNION OF INDIA

2015 INSC 257Disposed off

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, alleging that it infringes the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and is not saved by the reasonable restrictions of Article 19(2). They also contested the …

ANVAR P.V.versusP.K. BASHEER AND ORS.

2014 INSC 645Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an election petition challenging the election of P.K. Basheer on the ground that a leaflet (Exhibit‑P1) and various audio‑visual recordings were published to malign the petitioner, Anvar P.V., constituting a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, …

PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHANversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 183Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a public‑interest writ petition filed by Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan seeking pre‑emptive orders against hate speeches by elected representatives, arguing that such speeches violate Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and fundamental duties. The Court examined whether existing statutes—IPC, …

ANEETA HADAversusM/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & TOURS PVT. LTD.

2012 INSC 187Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether an authorised signatory of a company could be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 67/85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 without the company itself being named as an accused. The Court held that Section 141 of the …

K.K. VELUSAMYversusN. PALANISAMY

2011 INSC 243Case Partly allowed

The appellant, K.K. Velusamy, filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, which he claimed was merely a security for a loan. After the evidence was closed, he sought to reopen the evidence and recall two witnesses to cross‑examine them about admissions recorded on a compact disc, …

SANJAY KUMAR KEDIAversusNARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU & ANR.

2007 INSC 1216Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar Kedia incorporated two companies, Xponse Technologies Ltd and Xponse IT Services Pvt Ltd, which were alleged to have used their internet platforms to arrange the supply of psychotropic drugs such as phentermine and butalbital to customers abroad. The Narcotics Control Bureau …

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusM/S. AMRITSAR BEVERAGES LTD. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 496Appeal(s) allowed

The Punjab Sales Tax Department seized a hard disk containing the dealer's books and documents under Section 14(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The dealer failed to cooperate, and the High Court ordered the return of the seized material and imposed personal costs on the officers. On …