Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Deepak KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, granting it with specified conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Deepak Kumar, was implicated in a cyber‑crime case (No. 1435 of 2025) alleging harassment, coercion, posting of compromising photographs, and intimidation of the informant's family under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act. The informant claimed the petitioner forced her into a marriage, abused her, and hired musclemen to threaten her relatives, while the petitioner contended that the complaint was delayed, contradictory, and that the informant habitually files false cases. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s exploitative conduct. The petitioner’s counsel sought anticipatory bail, emphasizing lack of prior criminal record except a related case filed by the informant’s mother. The Court examined the allegations, the delay in filing, and the informant’s history of frivolous complaints, and decided to enlarge bail. It granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC read with Section 482(2) B.N.S.S., including bond, sureties, personal appearance, and possible cancellation for future offences. The order was pronounced on 26‑02‑2026, allowing the application.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the IT Act.
  • Whether the delay in filing the complaint and the informant’s alleged history of false cases justify the grant of bail.
  • Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences warrants denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • cyber crime
  • harassment
  • sexual exploitation
  • IT Act
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • Section 438 CrPC
  • Section 482 B.N.S.S.
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2540 of 2026

                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1435 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Deepak Kumar, Son of Late Raj Kumar Prasad, R/o Village - Sherpur
                 Majholiya, P.S. - Muzaffarpur, Distt. - Patna, at present R/o Manjhi Indian
                 Bank, Chhapra, P.S. - Manjhi, Dist. - Saran.


                                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                          Versus
                 The State of Bihar


                                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s      :        Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary, Adv.
                 For the Informant         :        Mr. Chandan Kumar Ray, Adv.
                                                    Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv.
                 For the State             :        Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
                                                    ORAL ORDER


3   26-02-2026                    Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

                   learned counsel for the informant.                       The State has been

                   represented by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

                                  2. The petitioner is apprehending his/her arrest in

                   connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 1435 of 2025 registered

                   for the offence(s) under Section(s) 351(B)m 79, 77 and 78 of the

                   of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Sections
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2540 of 2026(3) dt.26-02-2026
                                            2/5




          66(C), 66(E) and 67 of the I.T. Act.

                       3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has

          alleged that the petitioner had abused and coerced her and her

          family members through different mobile numbers in order to

          pressurize her to solemnize marriage with him. It has been

          alleged that when the informant, after knowing that the

          petitioner is already married, stopped talking to him, whereafter

          the petitioner started harassing her and also posted her

          compromising photographs on various social media platforms.

          It has further been alleged that the petitioner also hired

          muscleman in order to threaten the family of the informant and

          also assaulted her brother and a similar complaint has also been

          lodged by the family of the informant against the petitioner.

                       4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

          case. It has been submitted that the incident took place in April,

          2025, whereas the written report as regards the same has been

          lodged on 17.06.2025, after a delay of about two months. It has

          further been submitted that there are contradictions in the earlier

          complaint lodged by the mother of the informant and the present

          case. It has next been submitted that the informant is in habit of

          filing false and frivolous cases against targeted bank employees
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2540 of 2026(3) dt.26-02-2026
                                            3/5




          with similar allegations. It has lastly been submitted that the

          petitioner has no criminal antecedent except one filed by the

          mother of the informant, viz., Samastipur Town P.S. Case No.

          164 of 2025.

                       5. The learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned

          counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer

          for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and have

          submitted that the petitioner, on false pretext of marriage,

          established physical relationship with the informant and

          captured her objectionable photographs and videos.              It has

          further been submitted that when the petitioner began defaming

          the informant in society, she filed an informatory petition before

          the S.D.M., Samastipur on 03.06.2024.               It has, thus, been

          submitted that the petitioner, in view of his exploitative conduct

          with the informant, does not deserve the privilege of

          anticipatory bail.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case and taking note of the fact that the informant had lodged

          cases earlier against other person also, who also happened to be

          the bank officials, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner

          on bail.

                       7. Let the petitioner, above-named, be released on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2540 of 2026(3) dt.26-02-2026
                                            4/5




          anticipatory bail, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender

          before the concerned Court/successor Court within a period of

          four weeks from today, on his/her furnishing bail bonds in the

          sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of

          the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned

          Court/successor Court where the case is pending in connection

          with Cyber P.S. Case No. 1435 of 2025, subject to the

          conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of

          Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with corresponding Section

          482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

          (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to the following conditions :

                                  (i)   One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be
                            his/her close relative and the other shall be a local
                            resident.
                                  (ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
                            before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
                            trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
                                  (iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
                            or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of
                            the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
                            concerned Court.
                                  (iv) If the petitioner, in future, is found to be
                            involved in similar nature of offence(s), the prosecution
                            shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his/her bail
                            bonds.
                                  (v) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
                            antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
                            found that he/she has concealed his/her criminal
                            antecedents, the Court concerned shall take necessary
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2540 of 2026(3) dt.26-02-2026
                                                        5/5




                                        steps for cancellation of his/her bail bond. 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.


                                   8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made

                      in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.

                                   9. The application stands allowed.



                                               (Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.