Patna High Court
Kundan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was refused as the court was not convinced to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Summary
Kundan Kumar, the petitioner, applied for bail while in custody since 8 March 2026 for alleged offences under Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The prosecution alleged that he operated a mule bank account used to facilitate cyber fraud, with Rs. 8,62,006 credited to his account and Rs. 8,24,472 withdrawn via ATMs. The petitioner claimed a clean antecedent and that the FIR was fabricated. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing the financial transactions and the petitioner’s alleged role. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, after considering the material, declined to grant bail, finding sufficient grounds to believe the petitioner’s involvement in the cyber crime. Consequently, the petition for bail was refused.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 318(4) BNS, 2023 and Sections 66C/66D IT Act, 2000 in view of the alleged use of a mule account and the quantum of money involved.
Legislation cited
- BNS, 2023 — s. 318(4)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66C, 66D
Subjects
- bail
- cyber crime
- mule account
- IT Act
- Section 66C
- Section 66D
- Section 318
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27165 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2026 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Kundan Kumar S/o Bharat Prasad @ Bharat Yadav R/o Village - Fulchordh,
P.S - Mahuli, District - Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 Heard Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
08.03.2026 in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 14 of 2026,
F.I.R. dated 07.03.2026 for the offences punishable under
Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 66C/66D of the
I.T. Act, 2000.
3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner is
using his bank account as Mule account for committing cyber
fraud.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27165 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/2
any offence as alleged in the FIR. As per the allegation in the
FIR the amount in question has been withdrawn from teh ATMs
in the State of Jharkhand.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that in the bank account of the petitioner bearing
account no. 8101775125, altogether Rs. 8,62,006/- (Rs. Eight
lakh, sixty two thousand and six) has been credited in his bank
account between 06.08.2025 and 17.12.2025. It is evident that
the said bank account belong to the petitioner and he is account
holder of a Mule Account and out of Rs. 8,62,006/- , Rs.
8,24,472/- was withdrawn through ATMs from the bank account
of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioner was involved in the present cyber crime, I am
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with
Cyber P.S. Case No. 14 of 2026 pending in the court of learned
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Sheikhpura.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…