Patna High Court
Shankar Mishra @ Krishna Mahanti @ ShankarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that the petitioners do not merit the privilege of bail and therefore denied their bail applications.
Summary
The petitioners, Jatin Goyal and Shankar Mishra, were arrested in connection with a cyber‑fraud case involving alleged forgery, cheating and violations of Sections 419, 420, 379, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of the IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act. They sought regular bail, claiming they were merely low‑level employees of Alliance Solution Company and not involved in its management, and pointing to partial refunds made to the informant. The informant’s counsel contended that the petitioners actively participated in forging documents, deceiving investors, and that similar co‑accused had been denied bail. The court examined the allegations, the petitioners’ alleged role, the amount of money involved, and the fact that they had been in custody for over two years. Finding that the petitioners were named in the FIR and that the circumstances did not merit the privilege of bail, the court rejected the bail applications.
Issues considered
- The petitioners are entitled to regular bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged.
- Whether the petitioners, as alleged low‑level employees, can be considered not culpable for the fraud and forgery charges.
- Whether the partial refund of money to the informant negates the intention to deceive.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 34, 379, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Information Technology Act — s. 66D
Subjects
- regular bail
- fraud
- forgery
- cyber crime
- IPC
- IT Act
- investor scam
- custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34155 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2023 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Khagaria
======================================================
Jatin Goyal @ Yogesh Sahu @ Yogesh S/o Ramesh Sahu @ Ramesh Kumar
R/o Village- Itarsi Buto Muta Near Mandil Saktinagar, P.S.- Itarsi, District-
Naradapuram, State- Madhayapradesh ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 68914 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2023 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Khagaria
======================================================
Shankar Mishra @ Krishna Mahanti @ Shankar S/o Ramkripal Mishra R/o
Village- Chausa, P.S.- Chausa, Distt- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34155 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandan Kumar Kashyap
For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 68914 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandan Kumar Kashyap
For the State : Mr. Bharat Bhushan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
9 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
informant and the learned APP for the State.
2. In this case, the petitioners are seeking regular
bail in connection with Khagaria (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 20 of
2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419,
420, 379, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of the IPC and Section 66D
of the I.T. Act.
3. As per allegation, the petitioner Jatin Goyal
apprised the informant over phone that Alliance Solution
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34155 of 2025(9) dt.02-02-2026
2/4
Company is trading in share market for about ten years. The
C.E.O.-cum-owners, namely, Yashika Bansal and Sher Singh
Bakodiya and Abhinav Gupta and Rajesh Kumar are also office
bearers of the Company. The company assured the informant to
provide 25.40 per cent monthly return and also assured monthly
payment every month. It has further been alleged that through
the mobile, whereby, the conversation was made between the
informant and the petitioner, Jatin Goyal, some forged
documents of agreements were sent. The informant, on the
assurance given, invested Rs. 53,50,000/- in the said company.
Later on, he received Rs. 5,83,480/-. It has further been alleged
that the informant talked several times with the petitioner,
namely, Jatin Goyal and others, namely, Azad Tiwari, Bhaskar
Kumar and other officials of Alliance Solution Customer
Support, but it remained nothing but a futile effort. Having no
option, he went to the office of the Company in Bhopal where
he did not find the trace of the Company. Then, he went to
Bangalore and there also, he did not find the trace of the
Company. It is alleged that by committing fraud, the petitioners
and other co-accused persons cheated him by deception.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Jatin
Goyal @ Yogesh Sahu has submitted that the petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34155 of 2025(9) dt.02-02-2026
3/4
innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He is mere
employee of the company and is not involved in managerial
functions of the company. It has further been submitted that Rs.
5 lakhs and odds were refunded to the informant which shows
that it is not intention of the company to deceive the informant
or his wife. No transaction of money was made in the account of
the petitioner. It has further been submitted that one co-accused
has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and
one co-accused person has been granted bail by the Hon’ble
Apex Court (SLP No. 16934 of 2025).
5. It has been argued on behalf of petitioner, namely,
Shankar Mishra @ Krishna Mahanti that wife of this petitioner
has been granted bail. It has further been submitted that he is
also a lower grade employee of the Alliance Solution Company.
Both the petitioners are in custody since 10.11.2023 i.e. more
than two years.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
informant has submitted that the petitioners committed forgery
and cheated innocent investors and they are involved in so many
other cases of similar nature. Learned counsel has also
submitted that on similar footing, bail application of other co-
accused persons, who are not named in the FIR, have been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34155 of 2025(9) dt.02-02-2026
4/4
rejected whereas the petitioners are named in the FIR.
7. At the instance of petitioner, Shankar Mishra @
Krishna Mahanti, money which was received by the Company,
was deposited in the account of his wife. The complicity of the
petitioners transpires in paragraph nos. 236, 258 and 259 of the
case diary.
8. Considering the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances, the petitioners do not deserve privilege of bail.
Accordingly, it is rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…