Patna High Court
Ravi KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted and dismissed the application.
Summary
Ravi Kumar applied for anticipatory bail after the police linked him to a cyber‑fraud case based on a money transfer to his PhonePe account discovered during the interrogation of Ankit Kumar. The prosecution alleged that Ravi Kumar received proceeds of fraudulent ATM withdrawals and cyber‑fraud under several sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner contended that no incriminating material was seized from him, that the seizure list violated Section 105 of the BNS, and that he was falsely implicated despite having a pending bail in another case. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged offences. The court, after considering the gravity of the allegations and procedural deficiencies, declined to grant anticipatory bail, thereby rejecting the petitioner's application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged cyber‑fraud offences.
- Whether the seizure of material complied with the requirements of Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioner constitute sufficient grounds for arrest under the relevant provisions of the BNS and the IT Act.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) — s. 105, 303(2), 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5), 61(2)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66, 66(D)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cyber fraud
- IT Act
- seizure procedure
- Section 105
- criminal procedure
- bail denial
- fraud
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14883 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2025 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Ravi Kumar Son of Rajnish Prasad Resident of Village- Barith, P.S.-
Katrisarai, District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nandu Kumar Yadav, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 29-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Laheri P.S. case no. 229 of 2025 registered for the offence
under Sections 316(2), 303(2), 319(2) 318(4) 336(3)/ 338, /
340(2) / 61(2), 3(5) of BNS and 66, 66(D) of IT Act 2000.
3. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that upon
arriving near Chora Bagicha at the Kargil Bus Stand, they
observed two individuals who attempted to flee. After a chase,
the police apprehended one individual, identified as Ankit
Kumar. A search of his person yielded a mobile phone, two
ATM cards, and ₹17,500 in cash. During an inspection of his
phone at the police station, a transaction of ₹29,900 to an
account belonging to Ravi Kumar was discovered. Ankit Kumar
allegedly confessed to committing cyber fraud alongside the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14883 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
petitioner, Ravi Kumar. He further disclosed that they deceived
innocent victims, withdrew illicit funds using fraudulent ATM
cards, and transferred the proceeds to Ravi Kumar via PhonePe.
Accordingly, the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely
implicated in this case. It is further submitted that although the
petitioner has one criminal antecedent Giriyak (Katrisarai) P.S.
Case No. 196 of 2025 he is currently on bail in that matter. The
counsel contends that the prosecution's allegations in the present
case are entirely false, absurd, and concocted. Furthermore,
learned counsel submits that no incriminating material was
recovered from the person or possession of the petitioner, who is
merely a victim of misrepresented facts. Finally, it is argued that
the seizure list was not prepared in accordance with the
provisions of Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and that the police investigation has
failed to uncover any direct or indirect evidence against the
petitioner.
5. The learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the seriousness of the allegation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14883 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
levelled against the petitioner of being involved in crime of
cyber fraud with Innocent people, I am not inclined to grant
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is
rejected.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
U T
Checking your session…