Patna High Court

Abhishek Kumar JhaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 17 February 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

The Court denied bail to the petitioner, holding that the nature and seriousness of the allegations preclude release at this stage.

Summary

The petitioner, Abhishek Kumar Jha, was charged with cheating the informant and withdrawing Rs 30,00,000 from her bank account, alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 303(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner claimed the allegations were false, asserting a live‑in relationship with the informant and alleging a conspiracy by her to obtain marriage. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the large sum involved and the cyber‑fraud nature of the case. The Court examined the case diary entries and the seriousness of the allegations, and concluded that bail could not be granted at this stage. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, though the petitioner was permitted to renew the application after the charge‑sheet is framed.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged cyber fraud and cheating of Rs 30 lakh
Whether the alleged live‑in relationship and alleged lack of cooperation by the informant affect the bail decision

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 303(2), 316(2), 318(4)
Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66(c)

Subjects

bail
cyber fraud
cheating
Section 66(c) IT Act
fraud
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58994 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2024 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Abhishek Kumar Jha S/o- Bharat Kumar Jha Village- Barha PS- Benipatti
                 Distt- Madhubani
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Kumari Bhawana D/o- Randhir Kumar Village- Near Magrauni Heart Hosp
                  Ps- Nagar Dist- Madhubani
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh
                 For the State            :        Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh
                 For the Informant                 Mrs. Sneha Shruti
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   17-02-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public

                   Prosecutor for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 303(2) of the

                   B.N.S. and Section 66(c) of the I.T. Act.

                                 3. Petitioner is said to have cheated the informant and

                   withdrew Rs. 30,00,000/- from her bank account.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that false

                   and fabricated allegations have been made against him and the

                   fact of the matter is that the petitioner and the informant were

                   having a live-in relationship and the entire conspiracy has been

                   done by the informant in her bid to get married with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58994 of 2025(6) dt.17-02-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioner. It has also been submitted that even during the

          investigation, the informant had not provided her bank account

          to the Investigating Officer through which the money has been

          transferred. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this

          Court to paragraph 89 of the case diary which is also suggestive

          of the relationship between the petitioner and the informant and

          it does not appear to be believable that for the recovery of an

          amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the informant would again allow the

          petitioner to take another Rs. 10,00,000/- from her. Further,

          paragraph-147 of the case diary also indicates a transaction of

          Rs. 5,000/- from the bank account of the informant to the

          account of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is in custody

          since 24.05.2025 and the charge-sheet has been submitted.

                       5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for

          the informant, however, have opposed the application for bail on

          the ground that an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- has been

          fraudulently taken by the petitioner and the present case also

          amount to cyber fraud.

                           6. Taking into consideration the facts and

          circumstances and also considering the nature of allegations, I

          am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

          Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected in connection
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58994 of 2025(6) dt.17-02-2026
                                                         3/3




                       Madhubani (Sadar) Cyber P.S. Case No. 32 of 2024.

                                        7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his

                       prayer for bail after framing of charge.



                                                 (Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…