Patna High Court
Badal KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner, finding the allegations and antecedent sufficient to justify continued custody.
Summary
Badal Kumar petitioned for bail in a cyber‑crime case (PS‑Case No.51 of 2025) involving offences under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The police alleged that a mobile number used by Badal was involved in a fraud, leading to a raid on his brother Chandan Kumar’s residence where several devices, cards, and cash were seized. The petitioner claimed he was implicated only because he lives in the same house and that the spouse’s statements against him lack evidentiary value. The State highlighted Badal’s prior cyber‑offence and the seriousness of cyber crimes in Bihar, opposing bail. After considering the nature of the offences and the petitioner’s antecedent, the court declined to grant bail, rejecting the application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the seriousness of the cyber‑offences and his prior case.
- Whether the statements of the spouse (Vinti Kumari) implicating the petitioner have evidentiary value.
- Whether mere co‑habitation with the alleged principal offender justifies detention without bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 303(2), 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66, 66(D)
Subjects
- bail
- cyber crime
- IT Act
- evidence
- spouse testimony
- antecedent
- seizure
- court discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6400 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Nawada
======================================================
Badal Kumar S/O Late Varun Singh @ Barun Singh Resident of Village-
Akaunadih, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anirudh Kumar Sinha, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Prem Kumar Jha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Anirudh Kumar Sinha and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Cyber
P.S. Case No.51 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 303(2), 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3),
340(2) of B.N.S., 2023 as well as under Sections 66 and 66(D)
of the I.T. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of one case and is in custody since 10-
11-2025 and the informant alleges on 25-4-2025, he received an
information that mobile no. 8470986788 has been used for
committing Cyber fraud, as such for verifying the said
allegation, the informant along with police officials proceeded
based on the location of mobile no. 8470986788 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6400 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
accordingly reached near the house of one Chandan Kumar,
thereafter the house of Chandan was raided where Vinti Kumari
and Anik Kumari were present and they disclosed that they are
wife of Chandan and Badal (petitioner) respectively, further
during search of the house of Chandan, 8 smart phones, one
keypad mobile along with 10 ATM cards, 5 Cheque Books,
Passbooks, Pan Card and Aadhar Card were recovered and the
same were in the name of Chandan Kumar and his wife Vinti
Kumari, further Driving Licence of Chandan along with Rs.
1,04,200 were seized from the house. It is also alleged that wife
of Chandan Kumar, namely, Vinti Kumari, on inquiry disclosed
that Chandan and Badal indulged in committing Cyber offence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
thrust of the allegation is against Chandan; and petitioner came
to be implicated merely for the reason that he resides in the
same house where Chandan resides and is brother of Chandan.
It is next submitted that the disclosure made by Vinti Kumari,
who is wife of Chandan, before police does not have any
evidentiary value. It is further submitted that since petitioner is
not having good relationship with Chandan, as such his wife
falsely implicated him.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6400 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner
has antecedent of one case relating to Cyber offence. It is further
submitted that of late in the State of Bihar, Cyber offence has
become a menace. It is next submitted that Vinti Kumari has
specifically disclosed that this petitioner was also involved in
the occurrence of committing Cyber fraud along with his
brother. It is further submitted that it is not that Vinti Kumari
has only implicated the petitioner and not her husband.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into consideration the fact that the offence relates to
Cyber crime, the Court for the present is not inclined to release
the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…