Patna High Court
Purushottam Kumar @ Purshottam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court dismissed the bail application, upholding the earlier order denying bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Purushottam Kumar, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged cyber fraud involving fake bank accounts. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner opened multiple accounts using a false address and conducted fraudulent transactions, leading to the freezing of his accounts by cyber crime agencies. The trial judge’s report indicated that the case was still pending for evidence, and the petitioner had been in custody since June 2024. The High Court, recalling its earlier order dismissing the bail application, noted the gravity of the offences and the commencement of trial, and therefore refused to grant bail. The application for bail was consequently dismissed, upholding the earlier decision.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of cyber fraud under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC
- Whether the gravity of the offences and the pendency of trial justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- cyber fraud
- Indian Penal Code
- Sections 419
- Sections 420
- Sections 467
- Sections 468
- Sections 471
- Section 34
- high court
- gravity of offence
- pending trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 67397 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-292 Year-2024 Thana- BEGUSARAI TOWN District- Begusarai
======================================================
Purushottam Kumar @ Purshottam Kumar son of Late Sone Lal Paswan
Resident of village- Bagwara Ward No 8, Police Station -Shinghol, District
-Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sarvottam Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Shyameshwar Dayal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Begusarai Town
P.S. Case No. 292 of 2024 registered for the offence under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 75223 of 2024, which reads as under:
“Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Begusarai Town P.S. Case No.
292 of 2024 registered for the offence under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 67397 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
2/2
informant namely Shiv Kumar, Cashier of
Ujjivan Bank, Begusarai alleged that the
petitioner came to his bank to open an account
on behalf of his brother. He was already
operating two accounts. One in his name and
another in the name of one Shobha Devi. Both
the account’s was put on freeze by Cyber Crime
Roto, Calcutta.
4. The address furnished by the
petitioner while opening his accounts was also
found to be fake after verification. The details of
the fraudulent transactions are mentioned in the
case diary. The Uttar Pradesh Police and the
Indore Police have also directed for freezing the
account of the petitioner. Petitioner is a cyber
fraud who had opened accounts on fake address
and transactions were made through his
account. The petitioner is in custody since
05.06.2024.
5. Considering the fact that petitioner
is a cyber fraud, I am not inclined to grant bail
to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this application for
regular bail is dismissed.”
4. From the report of the trial Judge, it appears that
the case is pending for evidence.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier
order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…