Patna High Court
Chunnu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Chunnu Kumar and Sintu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a cyber fraud case involving fake loan advertisements. The prosecution alleged that they, along with others, participated in organized cyber fraud, with digital devices, cash and documents seized during a raid. The petitioners contended they were innocent, had no incriminating material in their possession, and possessed clean antecedents. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific accusations and the gravity of the offences listed under the B.N.S. and the Information Technology Act. Considering the direct nature of the accusations and seriousness of the offences, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure given the allegations under the B.N.S. and the Information Technology Act.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 217(2), 303(2), 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 330, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5), 61(2)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66, 66(C), 66(D)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cyber fraud
- Information Technology Act
- Section 66
- Section 66C
- Section 66D
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6153 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Chunnu Kumar S/o- Dasharath Yadav Village- Sundarpur PS- Katarisarai
District- Nalanda
2. Sintu Kumar S/o- Dasharath Yadav Village- Sundarpur PS- Katarisarai
District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2),
316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 217(2), 336(3), 330, 340(2), 61(2) and
3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 66, 66(C) and 66(D) of the I.T.
Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that these
petitioners, along with other accused persons, are indulged in
cyber fraud whereby fake loan advertisement were circulated
and victims were deceived into paying money. Multiple digital
devices, cash and other documents were recovered by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6153 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/2
raiding team.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. No incriminating article were
recovered from possession of these petitioners and they have
falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion.
Petitioners claim clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the
F.I.R. with specific accusation that they, along with other
accused persons, are indulged in organized cyber fraud and
various documents, digital devices and cash were recovered
during raid.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…