Patna High Court
Saddam HussainversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner with stringent conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Saddam Hussain, was arrested in connection with a cyber‑crime case alleging that he and co‑accused took Rs 21.75 lakh from an informant for forging documents for overseas employment and later assaulted the informant when the money was demanded back. He faces charges under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (including offences of intimidation, assault and criminal conspiracy) and sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner claimed innocence and offered to return the entire amount, while the State opposed bail citing two prior criminal antecedents. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner’s willingness to compensate, and the need to ensure his presence at trial. It granted bail subject to a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties, a demand draft of Rs 10 lakh to the informant, payment of the balance within six months, and strict conditions regarding cooperation, presence, and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged fraud, forgery, assault and offences under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the IT Act despite prior criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 303(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(c), 66(d)
Subjects
- bail
- cyber crime
- forgery
- fraud
- assault
- IT Act
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
- criminal antecedent
- conditions of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22221 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- East Champaran
======================================================
Saddam Hussain Son of Idris Ansari Resident of Village- Phajalpur Mahraula
Tarai Bihar, Ward No. 25, Rudrapur, District- Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttrakhand, At present- 2 No. Motilal Colony, Majaumder Dara, Dum-Dum
near 1 no. Gurudwara, Kolkatta- 700079
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-04-2026 Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Nayan, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. Karandeep Kumar,
learned counsel for the Informant.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
29.12.2025 in connection with Motihari Cyber P.S. Case No.
101 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 24.06.2025 for the offences punishable
under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 303(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and 66(c), 66(D) of the IT
Act.
3. As per F.I.R, the petitioner and other co-accused
persons took money Rs.21,75,000/- from the informant and his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22221 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
2/4
three associates in the name of preparing document and sending
them to abroad for employment. However, on verification, the
documents were found to be forged and when informant
demanded money back from the accused persons, the accused
persons abused and assaulted him and threatened to face dire
consequences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is ready to return Rs.21,75,000/- to the informant.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and learned counsel for the Informant have vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that
petitioner carries two criminal antecedents but fairly submits
that informant is ready to receive the amount in question.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-
IV, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Motihari
Cyber P.S. Case No. 101 of 2025, subject to the following
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22221 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
3/4
conditions:-
i. One of the bailors shall be close family member of
the petitioner.
ii. At the time of furnishing bail bond, the petitioner
shall produce a demand draft of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakh) in favour of the informant and learned court below is
directed to handover the said demand draft to the informant or
his representative and rest amount of Rs. 11,75,000/-(Rupees
Eleven Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) shall be paid to the
informant within a period of six months. If the petitioner fails to
deposit the rest amount of Rs. 11,75,000/-(Rupees Eleven Lakh
Seventy Five Thousand) to the informant, the informant shall be
at liberty to move before the appropriate forum for cancellation
of bail bond of the petitioner.
iii. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
iv. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22221 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
4/4
v. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…