Patna High Court
Chhotu Kumar @ Ajay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Chhotu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a cyber‑crime case (Case No. 85 of 2025) involving alleged online loan fraud. The prosecution alleged offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, based largely on a confessional statement of a co‑accused and the recovery of a mobile phone from that co‑accused. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that no specific overt act was alleged against him, and that he had no criminal antecedents. The State opposed the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences. The Court, after considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and the lack of concrete evidence directly linking the petitioner, held that the case was not suitable for anticipatory bail and rejected the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in the present cyber‑crime case
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused and the recovery of a mobile phone constitute sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 111, 303(2), 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cyber crime
- online loan fraud
- confessional statement
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- high court
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62874 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Nawada
======================================================
Chhotu Kumar @ Ajay Kumar S/O Matlu Singh @ Amit Kumar R/O Village-
Kunj, P.S.- Roh, District- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Choubey Jawahar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Cyber P.S. Case No. 85 of 2025, instituted for the offences
under Sections 303(2), 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3),
338, 340(2), 111 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on getting an
information about online loan fraud, the police raided Kunj
Garden and apprehended four suspects while three fled away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The
name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of
confessional statement of co-accused. Learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62874 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/2
petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has
been made against the petitioner. No specific overt act is alleged
against the petitioner. The alleged mobile has been recovered
from the co-accused. It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, nature and gravity of offence, in my view, this is not
a fit case for anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.