Patna High Court
Dharmendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Dharmendra Kumar, was named in an FIR for alleged cyber fraud and related offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. He applied for anticipatory bail, contending that his involvement was inferred solely from a co-accused's statement and that the shop alleged to be the source of incriminating material was actually rented to his cousin. He further argued that the alleged forged documents were not proven prima facie. The prosecution opposed the bail, emphasizing the recovery of material from the shop owned by the petitioner and the ongoing investigation. The High Court, after considering the submissions, rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail application, holding that the circumstances warranted continued custody.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner under the charges of cyber fraud and related offences?
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(1)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66-C, 66-D
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cyber fraud
- B.N.S.
- IT Act
- forgery
- investigation
- shop ownership
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.486 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Dharmendra Kumar S/o- Late Dayanand @ Dayanand Ram R/v- Purani Bazar
PS- Dist- Lakhisarai, P/A- Kakrauri Ps- Halsi Dist- Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravindra Kumar Shukla
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Lakhisarai Cyber
P.S. Case No.35 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 340(2), 338, 336(3), 318(4),
61(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short
‘B.N.S.’) as well as Sections 66-C and 66-D of the
Information and Technology Act, pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is to involve in
cyber fraud alongwith other co-accused persons and thus, by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.486 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
cheated several innocent persons by creating forged
documents, etc.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that name of this petitioner transpired on the
basis of disclosure made by apprehended co-accused Sourabh
Kumar and merely as he is the owner of the shop namely, M/s
King Photoshop, he was implicated in the present case. It is
submitted that in fact the shop in issue was given on rent to
his cousin brother and nothing transpired till now during
investigation that this petitioner was under knowledge
regarding illegal activities, as alleged.
5. It is further submitted that allegation qua
preparation of seized matriculation certificate and other
personal documents cannot be said to be forged much before
expert scientific finding, and therefore, the allegation also not
appears prima facie convincing. Explaining criminal
antecedent, it is submitted that petitioner found involved in
one more criminal case, in which he is on bail.
6. Learned APP opposed the prayer of anticipatory
bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.486 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
7. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of the fact as shop in issue from where
incriminating materials in connection with alleged cyber fraud
was recovered, owned by this petitioner, coupled with the fact
that investigation of this case is still open, accordingly, prayer
of anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…