Patna High Court
Amarjeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner subject to a bond of Rs.10,000, two sureties (including his father), and conditions for cancellation if trial delays occur.
Summary
Amarjeet Kumar was arrested on allegations of hacking a departmental portal and illegally preparing ration cards, based largely on a co-accused's confessional statement. He has been in custody since 24 October 2025 and contends he has a clean antecedent and that the seizure of his laptop and mobile does not justify his implication. The petitioner sought regular bail for offences under several sections of the B.N.S. and the Information Technology Act, arguing that similar bail applications by co-accused had been granted. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the facts, directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be his father, and warned that the bail could be cancelled if he attempts to delay the trial. The order thus grants regular bail subject to the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted in a case involving offences under sections 338, 336(3), 341(1), 303(2), 318(4), 319(2), 61(2) of the B.N.S. and sections 66C, 66D of the Information Technology Act
- Whether the seizure of the petitioner’s laptop and mobile devices constitutes sufficient ground for continued detention
- Whether prior bail orders to co-accused affect the petitioner’s entitlement to bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 303(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 341(1), 61(2)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66C, 66D
Subjects
- regular bail
- cybercrime
- Information Technology Act
- section 66C
- section 66D
- seizure of devices
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11057 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- East Champaran
======================================================
Amarjeet Kumar Son of Ravindra Sah @ Ravinder Shah @ Rabindar Sah R/o
Village - Tejpurwa, Ward no. 13, P.S. - Paharpur(Malahi), District - East
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar No.Iii
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 04-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State .
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 338, 336(3), 341(1),
303(2), 318(4), 319(2), 61(2) of B.N.S. and Section 66C, 66D
I.T. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody
since 24.10.2025 and the informant alleges that during
verification of R.C.M.S. portal on 21.05.2025, it transpired that
departmental portal was hacked and without login O.T.P., Ration
Card were prepared at God speed, i.e, in 50 second 9 ration
cards and in 19 seconds, 16 ration cards were prepared, when no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11057 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
2/3
recommendation was sent from M.O., Login and on enquiry,
role and Rehan and Suraj was found.
4. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the instant case based on confessional
statement of Suraj, it is also submitted that how so petitioner
was raided but he was not found present in the House and from
his House, laptop and mobile were seized, it is next submitted
that seizure of laptop or mobile cannot be a ground for
implicating the petitioner, it is also submitted that Niraj and
Suraj had approached this Court for seeking regular bail by
filing Cr. Misc. No.63697 of 2025 and Cr. Misc. No.65602 of
2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated
14.11.2025 passed by learned Coordinate Bench. It is also
submitted that case of the petitioner is on better footing than
Niraj and Suraj. It is further submitted that if privilege of
regular bail is granted, the petitioner will not abscond rather will
cooperate in trial to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be enlarged on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Twenty Ten
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11057 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
3/3
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned A..C.J.M.-IV, Motihari, in connection
with Motihari Cyber P.S. Case No. 78 of 2025, subject to the
condition that one bailor should be the father of the petitioner,
namely, Ravindra Sah @ Ravinder Shah @ Rabindar Sah.
7. It is made clear that if the learned trial Court come
to the conclusion that petitioner after release is trying to delay
the framing of charge or after framing of charge is trying to
delay invoked the condition, the learned trial Court in both the
conditions shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the
petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
sanjeev/-
U
Checking your session…