Patna High Court
Deepak Singh @ Deepak KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The application for regular bail was rejected.
Summary
Deepak Singh applied for regular bail in a case registered under sections 77, 7, 351(3) and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and sections 66(C), 66(E), 67 and 67(A) of the I.T. Act. The prosecution alleges that Singh, without consent, made a video‑call conversation and objectionable photographs of the informant public and threatened her and her family. Singh contends he was falsely implicated, claiming the matter stems from a one‑sided love affair and that he is willing to cooperate with the investigation. The court noted that Singh had previously obtained bail in an earlier case (Dhamoul PS case no. 11 of 2025) and had allegedly repeated the same conduct after that bail. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the alleged repeat offence, the court refused to enlarge bail and dismissed the bail application, granting liberty to renew the prayer after six months or after charge‑framing, whichever is later.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for regular bail despite alleged repeat offences.
- Whether the prior grant of bail in an earlier case influences the decision on the current bail application.
- Whether the offences under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and the I.T. Act justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351(3), 352, 7, 77
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(C), 66(E), 67, 67(A)
Subjects
- regular bail
- repeat offence
- video call privacy
- threats
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- Information Technology Act
- sexual harassment
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5660 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-127 Year-2025 Thana- DHAMOUL District- Nawada
======================================================
Deepak Singh @ Deepak Kumar S/O Surendra Kumar R/O Village- Manjour,
P.S- Warisaliganj, Distt.- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Dhamoul P.S. Case no.
127 of 2025 registered under sections 77, 7, 351(3) and 352 of
the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and sections 66(C), 66(E), 67
and 67(A) of the I.T. Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that the video call conversation between her and Deepak Singh,
without her consent, was made public by the petitioner. This
included the objectionable photographs of the informant.
Further, the petitioner used to threaten her that he would make
the life of the informant as also her family members, hell. This
led to the informant registering a case being Dhamaul PS case
no. 11 of 2025 wherein the petitioner obtained bail and he once
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5660 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/2
again started making the photographs of the informant, viral.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It is a case of a
one sided love affair. The video calling between the parties was
taking place as the informant wanted to marry the petitioner.
The petitioner who has a bright career is in custody since
22.10.2025 and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/
trial.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the
petitioner being in the habit of repeating the offence alleged in
the FIR even after the registration of the earlier Dhamoul P.S.
Case no. 11 of 2025 wherein he obtained bail, the Court is not
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is
rejected.
6. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his
prayer for bail after six months or on framing of charge,
whichever is later.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash
U T
Checking your session…