BHOLA KUMAR @ BHOLA BHAITHAversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36444 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 BHOLA KUMAR @ BHOLA BHAITHA Son of Jirjudhan Baitha @
                 Duryodhan Baitha Resident of Village- Khora (Pokhariya Ray), P.S.-
                 Chanpatiya, Bettiah, District- West Champaran.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Suresh Pd, Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-06-2026                   The Court proceeding is being conducted through

                   virtual mode.

                                2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                3. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Bettiah Cyber P.S. Case No. 45 of 2025, dated 02.09.2025,

                   lodged under Sections 303(2), 319(2), 318(4), 61(2), 317(2) &

                   351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred

                   to as “BNS, 2023”) and under Sections 66, 66(C) and 66(D) of

                   the I.T., Act, 2000, pending before the Court of J.M., 1st, Bettiah,

                   West Champaran.

                                4. As per the prosecution, on 16.08.2024, the

                   informant Hare Ram Kumar Sah was travelling along with his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36444 of 2026(2) dt.04-06-2026
                                            2/3




          brother-in-law Ranjit Kumar. During the journey, his mobile

          phone (OPPO Reno 10) was stolen. Later, on 19.08.2024, when

          he went to the bank to check his account, he found that almost

          all the money from his account had been withdrawn through

          UPI transactions without his permission. After checking the

          bank statement, it was found that the money was transferred to

          the bank account of Bhola Kumar. Some other small amounts

          were also sent to different accounts. On inquiry, Bhola Kumar

          told him that the mobile phone had been stolen by Ranjit

          Kumar, and the stolen phone was used to take out money from

          his bank account. When the informant asked for his money

          back, both accused refused to return it and also misbehaved with

          him. Thus, it is alleged that both accused persons stole the

          mobile phone and used it to illegally transfer money from the

          informant’s bank account.

                       5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is further

          submitted that the informant has no grievance at present,

          however, the present criminal case has been instituted by the

          informant, and therefore the petitioner has filed the present

          anticipatory bail application. It is also submitted that the

          criminal antecedent of the petitioner is clean.
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36444 of 2026(2) dt.04-06-2026
                                                      3/3




                                 6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

                    bail of the petitioner and submits that the allegation against the

                    petitioner is specific.

                                 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                    present case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail

                    to the petitioner at this juncture.

                                 8. Liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that if the

                    petitioner and the informant appear together before the learned

                    Trial Court and the informant is not willing to pursue the present

                    case, the learned Trial Court shall consider and dispose of the

                    petitioner’s surrender-cum-bail application on the same day,

                    without being prejudiced by the fact that the anticipatory bail

                    application of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court. The

                    Trial Court shall pass its order on merits, taking into

                    consideration the fact that the informant is not willing to pursue

                    the case.

                                 9. Accordingly, the present bail application stands

                    disposed of.



                                                                         (Dr. Anshuman, J.)

Aman Kumar/-

U     T