Patna High Court
Nitesh Kumar JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner on the condition of a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties and compliance with specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitesh Kumar Jha, was arrested in connection with a cyber‑fraud case alleging impersonation of the owner of WEFALC Company and promising investors a four‑fold return, leading to charges under IPC sections 420, 379, 467, 471, 506, 34 and IT Act section 66(D). He contended that he was merely an investor with no control over the company’s backend, had a clean antecedent, and was falsely implicated, citing that co‑accused Ajay Kumar Rai and Rajeev Kumar had already been granted bail. The prosecution argued that the petitioner actively participated in the fraud and cited witness statements linking him to the scheme. The court examined the petitioner’s clean record, the bail granted to co‑accused, and the fact that a charge‑sheet had been filed, and decided to release him on bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, appearance, and non‑tampering with evidence. The bail order also directed the lower court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent but not to delay acceptance of the bond.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under the IPC and the IT Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the bail granted to co‑accused justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 379, 420, 467, 471, 506
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66(D)
Subjects
- bail
- cyber fraud
- cheating
- IPC
- IT Act
- impersonation
- financial fraud
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2265 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2023 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Nitesh Kumar Jha S/o- Late Mohan Jha @ Chandra Mohan Jha R/v- Chahuta
Ps- Bisfi Dist- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vivekanand Maharaj Saheb Maharaj R/o- Singhwada,Thana- Singhwara,
District- Darbhanga
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Chaudhary Prem Kumar Thakur, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 01-05-2026 Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned senior counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Chaudhary Prem Kumar Thakur, learned
counsel for the informant and Mr. Binod Kumar, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
01.05.2025 in connection with Darbhanga Cyber P.S. Case No.
98 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 09.12.2023 for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 379, 467, 471, 506 and 34 of the IPC and
Section 66(D) of the IT Act, 2000.
3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner
along with one co-accused Ajay Kumar Ray impersonated
themselves as the onwer of WEFALC Company and insisted the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2265 of 2026(5) dt.01-05-2026
2/5
informant to invest in their company and assured him that his
money will be fourfold in seven months but after the stipulated
time when the informant demanded his maturity amount then
they refused to gave his money back and also threatened him for
dire consequences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the
petitioner has no control or access to the backend, server,
domain, wallet system or withdrawal mechanisms of the said
website. Petitioner is only one of the similar investors like
informant and also invested in the aforesaid company through
one Vikash Kumar Yadav and his ID was generated through web
portal (Annexure-P/3) and petitioner has no role at all in the
present occurrence. Investors have deposited the amount in
question in the bank account of the co-accused, namely, Ajay
Kumar Rai and petitioner has been made accused merely on the
ground that he was also part and parcel of the company in
question. He further submits that the petitioner has not received
any single amount from the informant. He further submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2265 of 2026(5) dt.01-05-2026
3/5
similarly situated, co-accused, namely, Rajeev Kumar has been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated
22.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 74747 of 2024 and co-
accused, namely, Ajay Kumar Rai @ Ajay Kumar has been
granted regular bail by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No. 17863 of 2025. He further submits that the
police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the
petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 01.05.2025 i.e.
about one year.
5. The learned counsel for the informant as well as
learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the
petitioner was directly involved in the present crime in question.
He instigate innocent people to invest in a fake company on
assurance to make their money 4 times within 7 months. The
witnesses in paragraph nos. 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the case
diary have supported the allegation as leveled in the FIR and
they have stated that the petitioner was also directly involved in
cheating and fraud with other accused persons but fairly submits
that from perusal of the paragraph no. 3 of the case diary, it
appears that the co-accused Ajay Kumar Rai is the owner of the
company in question and petitioner is his associate.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2265 of 2026(5) dt.01-05-2026
4/5
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioner has clean antecedent, co-accused Ajay Kumar
Rai who is happened to be the owner of the company in
question has been granted regular bail by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and co-accused Rajeev Kumar has been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court and police have already
submitted chargesheet, 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 Judicial Magistrate-1 st Class,
Darbhanga in connection with Darbhanga Cyber P.S. Case No.
98 of 2023, subject to the following conditions:-
i. 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.
ii. 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.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2265 of 2026(5) dt.01-05-2026
5/5
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)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.