Patna High Court
Abhishek @ Abhishek Kumar @ ChunnuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioners as the material evidence and the Sessions Judge’s findings indicated their involvement in the alleged cyber‑crime.
Summary
The petitioners, Abhishek Kumar and Sachin Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a cyber‑crime case (Sheikhpura Cyber P.S. Case No. 07 of 2026) involving alleged offences under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act (B.N.S.) and the Information Technology Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were part of a scheme operating under the ‘Dhani Fast Loans’ app, duping victims and committing offences such as cheating, criminal breach of trust and offences under the IT Act. The petitioners contended that they had not been apprehended by police and were named only after the actual accused were seized, asserting no prior criminal record. The State, through the Assistant Public Prosecutor, relied on the Sessions Judge’s findings that the petitioners were complicit and the masterminds of the crime. After considering the submissions, the material evidence and the Sessions Judge’s observations rejecting the anticipatory bail, the Court found no basis to grant relief. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the alleged offences under the B.N.S. and the IT Act
- Whether the material on record establishes sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
- Information Technology Act — s. 61(2), 66(C), 66(D)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cyber crime
- Information Technology Act
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- criminal liability
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20776 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2026 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
1. Abhishek @ Abhishek Kumar @ Chunnu S/o Mahesh Prasad R/o Village -
Chhabilathika, P.S - Barbigha, District - Sheikhpura
2. Sachin Kumar S/o Karyanand Prasad R/o Village - Fedali Bigha, P.S -
Barbigha, District - Sheikhpura Maternal Address - R/o Village -
Chhabilathika, P.S - Barbigha, District - Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Sheikhpura Cyber P.S. Case No. 07 of 2026
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2),
318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the B.N.S.
and section 61(2), 66(C) and 66(D) of I.T. Act, lodged on
03.02.2026 by the informant Mithilesh Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that upon secret information that accused persons are involved
in the Cyber Crime under the name and logo of Dhani Fast
Loans App while calling the innocents and in the name of
various service charges duping them of money, raided the place
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20776 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/2
and after rounding of those present there, picked up the actual
accused involved in the case. It then came to the notice of the
Police that this petitioner as also Sachin Kumar commit the
Cyber Crime by sitting in the community hall of the village.
This led to the F.I.R..
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the
Police intercepted and apprehended the accused, the petitioners
are not among them. Further, only because those apprehended
named them, got implicated. They have no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP on the other hand has taken this Court
to learned Sessions Judge order to show that there is complete
complicity of these two petitioners and they are the actual
mastermind of the entire episode.
6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
as also the materials on record and the observations of the
learned Sessions Judge while rejecting their anticipatory bail
application, no relief can be extended to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application
stands rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…