Patna High Court
Mayank MohanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and a condition that bail may be denied if he is found involved in more than four cases.
Summary
The petitioner, Mayank Mohan, was named in an FIR for alleged fraud involving the operation of an informant's bank accounts and offences under several IPC and IT Act provisions. He sought bail, contending that the FIR was lodged after a year, the bank had taken no action, and the informant suffered no loss. The prosecution opposed bail, highlighting the use of the petitioner’s mobile number for OTPs and his involvement in multiple other criminal cases. The court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the absence of any bank complaint, and the lack of financial loss to the informant, and therefore ordered the petitioner’s release on bail. Bail was granted on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC, Section 482(2) BNSS, and a stipulation that bail may be denied if the petitioner is involved in more than four cases.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code given the nature of the alleged offences.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of any action by the bank justify granting bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s involvement in four other criminal cases should preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 379, 406, 419, 420, 462, 463, 467, 468
- Information Technology Act — s. 66C, 66D
Subjects
- bail
- cyber crime
- bank fraud
- IPC
- IT Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
- Common Services Centre
- delay in FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33861 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2024 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Mayank Mohan S/o Subodh Kumar Tiwari @ Subodh Tiwari R/o village -
Sonbarsa, P.S. - Kanti, Dist. - Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, Adv
: Mr. Alok Kr. Alok, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
For the Informant : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
7 12-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Cyber P.S. Case
No. 92 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 419, 420, 120(B), 379, 462, 463, 467, 468, 406 of
the IPC and 66 (C) and 66(D) of the IT Act.
3. As per FIR, petitioner alleged to operate current
account no. 486005500055 of informant with ICICI Bank,
fraudulently.
4. Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner submitted that out of acquaintance
being operator of CSC (Common Services Centers) petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33861 of 2025(7) dt.12-01-2026
2/4
helped informant to open two bank accounts with ICICI Bank,
one was saving and other was current account. It is pointed
out that the mobile no. 9801955250, which was admittedly of
petitioner was given to the bank under consent of informant
along with mobile no. 9801905525. It is further submitted
that mobile of recovery SMS for e-mail id –
[email protected], was not belongs to this
petitioner as same was in the name of S.Kumar.
5. Arguing further, it is submitted that even bank
authority is silent to disclose that from which source amount
of Rs. 1.75 crores was sent to the current account of
informant and further to whom it was transferred by
petitioner as alleged and as such merely on the basis of
suspicion petitioner was implicated with present case. It is
submitted that admittedly in the opening of account aadhar
card and pan card belongs to the informant was used and
therefore, to save his skin from the criminal prosecution he
lodged present FIR after a delay of about one year without
any explanation. It is submitted that no FIR as yet was lodged
by bank authority against this petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33861 of 2025(7) dt.12-01-2026
3/4
6. Explaining criminal antecedents, it is submitted
that petitioner found involved in four criminal cases i.e.,
Cyber P.S. Case No. 92 of 2024, Kanti P.S. Case No. 635 of
2021, Kanti P.S. Case No. 990 of 2024 & Karja P.S. Case No.
83 of 2025 only where he is on bail.
7. Learned APP opposed the bail. Mr. S.B.K.
Mangalam learned counsel for the informant while opposing
the prayer of bail submitted that it was mobile number of
petitioner to which OTP of transaction was sent by the bank in
terms of letter dated 05.05.2025. However, it is conceded
that account in issue was in the name of this informant for
opening the same aadhar card and pan card of the informant
was used.
8. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of fact as present FIR was lodged after passing
more than a year by the informant, where till date admittedly
no action was initiated against petitioner by the concerned
bank and moreover informant did not suffered any financial
loss from the aforesaid transaction, accordingly petitioner
above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33861 of 2025(7) dt.12-01-2026
4/4
the court below within a period of four weeks, is directed to be
released on bail, furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM (West),
Muzaffarpur/concerned Court, where the case is pending in
connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 92 of 2024, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C/ Section 482(2) of BNSS with a condition:-
(a). Learned Trial Court is directed as not
to accept the bail bond of petitioner if he
found involved in more than four cases, in
view of submission as discussed aforesaid.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…