Patna High Court
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh kr RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court dismissed the petitioner's bail application, finding no ground to review its earlier order.
Summary
Santosh Kumar was charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66, 66(B) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act for alleged cyber fraud. He had earlier applied for bail, which was rejected on 14 March 2024. In a second bail application, the petitioner’s counsel failed to file a supplementary affidavit as directed by the court. The Patna High Court considered the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s non‑compliance with the court’s direction. Finding no sufficient ground to revisit its earlier order, the court dismissed the bail application and ordered the trial to proceed expeditiously.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate decision on the petitioner's second bail application in view of the gravity of the alleged cyber‑fraud offences and his failure to file the required supplementary affidavit?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 34, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Information Technology Act — s. 66, 66(B), 66(D)
Subjects
- bail
- cyber fraud
- Indian Penal Code
- Information Technology Act
- gravity of offence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72175 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2024 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada
======================================================
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh kr Rai S/O Sachidanand Rai R/O Vill-Uttar Nagar,
Bikas Nagar, Block-15, P.S. Ranaula, District- Bikaspuri (New Delhi)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
10 25-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of bail of the petitioner. The
petitioner seeks bail in connection with Warsaliganj P.S. Case
No. 05 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 14.03.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 18433 of 2024 which
reads as follows:-
“Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 05
of 2024 registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and
120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 66, 66(B) and 66(D) of the I.T. Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
petitioner along with other cyber frauds was
caught in an orchard committing cyber fraud.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent
therefore he may be granted bail. He also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72175 of 2024(10) dt.25-02-2026
2/2
submits that other co-accused has been granted
bail.
5. Learned APP appearing for the
State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner.
6. Considering the fact that the
petitioner is involved in cyber fraud, I am not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application
stands dismissed.
8. The Court below is directed to
expedite the trial.
9. The Superintendent of Police,
Nawada will see to it that the witnesses are
produced on the date fixed for examination of
the witnesses.
10. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the Superintendent of Police,
Nawada for its compliance through FAX or e-
mail forthwith.”
4. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner was
directed to file a supplementary affidavit with regard to the
stage of trial but he has failed to do so.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence, this Court
finds no ground to review its earlier order.
6. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands
rejected.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…