Patna High Court
Rohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to bond and surety conditions, despite the prima facie suspicion.
Summary
The petitioner, Rohit Kumar, was not named in the FIR but was implicated in a cyber‑offence involving alleged fraud through a mobile number, with offences under IPC sections 419, 420, 379 and IT Act section 66(D). The informant had transferred Rs. 30,000 to the mobile number, later discovering the fraud, and the amount was subsequently returned to him as part of a compromise. The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR, the mobile number was not in his name, and he has a clean antecedent. The State opposed the petition for anticipatory bail, contending there was prima facie suspicion. The court examined the informant’s statement and the compromise, and concluded that while suspicion existed, the petitioner’s clean record warranted bail. Consequently, the court ordered anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bond and two sureties, subject to the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite prima facie suspicion of involvement in cyber‑fraud.
- Whether the petitioner’s non‑inclusion in the FIR and clean antecedent justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cyber crime
- IPC 419
- IPC 420
- IPC 379
- IT Act 66(D)
- clean antecedent
- compromise
- mobile fraud
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44223 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2024 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Khagaria
======================================================
Rohit Kumar S/O Vinod Saw R/O Vill.- Ahra Patam, P.s.- Narayam Nagar,
Dist.- Munger, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, not named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No.
03 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
419, 420, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and 66(D) of the I.T.
Act.
3. As per FIR, the informant was asked to transfer Rs.
75,000/- to Mobile No. 7545827189 by some unknown persons
introducing him as police personnel against release of his son
arrested at Ranchi. Subsequent to the call, informant transferred
Rs. 30,000/- to the aforesaid mobile number and, thereafter he
called his son and came to know that he was cheated as no such
occurrence took place with his son at Ranchi.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44223 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
2/3
submitted that petitioner was not named in the FIR and the
mobile number i.e. 7545827189, which alleged to be involved in
the present occurrence and was used for alleged transfer of
money, was not in the name of this petitioner. It is also pointed
out that the amount of Rs. 30,000/-, which was transferred by
the informant, was transferred to the account of one Lalu
Kumar.
5. It is submitted that on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused persons, it transpired during
investigation that the aforesaid mobile number was also used by
this petitioner, and for said suspicion only the name of this
petitioner was implicated with present crime in question, who is
otherwise a man of clean antecedent.
6. Arguing further, it is submitted that the matter was
now compromised between the parties and co-accused
Shubhankar Kumar, in furtherance of the compromise, returned
Rs. 30,000/- to the informant. In this connection, attention of
this Court was drawn towards Annexure ‘2’ where during court
examination, the informant categorically stated that on
29.10.2025 the amount which was transferred by him to Mobile
No. 7545827189, has already been returned to his account.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44223 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
8. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of the fact as implication of this petitioner prima
facie appears on the basis of suspicion, where the statement of
the informant prima facie suggest that he received the cheated
amount as alleged, accordingly, above-named petitioner, who is
a man of clean antecedent, in the event of his arrest/surrender
within a period of four weeks from this order, is directed to be
enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten
thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class,
Khagaria/concerned court in connection with Cyber P.S. Case
No. 03 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.