Patna High Court
Mamta KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the petitioner was identified as the principal accused in the fraud investigation.
Summary
Mamta Kumari applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a cyber‑crime case (Case No. 180 of 2024) involving alleged fraud of Rs.12.16 lakh under Sections 379, 406, 201, 34 and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner claimed innocence, argued that no notice under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code had been served, and highlighted her clean record and modest means. The State opposed bail, relying on the trial court’s findings and a case diary that identified the petitioner as the principal accused, with substantial amounts traced to bank accounts. The High Court examined whether the circumstances warranted anticipatory bail and considered the procedural requirement of a Section 41 notice. Concluding that the evidence and investigation reports implicated the petitioner as the main offender, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances.
- Whether the failure to issue a notice under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. bars the prosecution.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 41
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 201, 34, 379, 406, 66(D)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cyber crime
- fraud
- IT Act
- Section 41 CrPC
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8107 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2024 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
Mamta Kumari D/o- Surendra Saw R/vill- Dilhuri, P.S.- Haspura, Distt-
Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rahul Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Satya Nand Shukla, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Cyber P.S. Case No.180 of 2024 lodged on 01.03.2024, for
the offences punishable under Sections 379, 406, 201, 34 and
66(D) of the I.T. Act, 2000.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
two named accused persons including the present petitioner with
allegation that total transaction of Rs.12,16,000/- was
fraudulently withdrawn and transferred from the informant and
his father bank account.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel
also submits that the petitioner is basically met at the house of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8107 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
informant and only with a view to teach lesson for not
demanding money, the present case has been lodged. He further
submits that notice under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. has not been
issued to the petitioner.
5. Counsel submits that the petitioner is a lady and her
criminal antecedent is clean and ready to fulfill all the
conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon her. He further
submits that petitioner is living at the house of the informant for
more than one year and getting salary of Rs.9000/- per month.
The outstanding amount of Rs.30,000/- which petitioner was
demanding, but inspite of providing money, she has been falsely
implicated in the present case.
6. Counsel further submits that on previous occasion,
case diary has been called for.
7. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that the Trial Court at the time
of rejecting the bail, has categorically discussed the contents
which has been extracted in the case diary during investigation
by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cyber Branch. In the
investigation, it has come that Rs.8,47,000/- from the bank of
SBI and Rs.3,69,000/- from the bank of ICICI have been
transacted.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8107 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
8. Counsel further submits that in paragraph 53 of the
case diary, there is categorical statement recorded by the
investigation team that how the present petitioner involved in
transaction of money with the help of one Sandeep Kumar and
her sister, namely, Jyoti Kumari. It has been found by the I.O.
that the petitioner is a sole and main accused.
9. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is
not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, therefore
the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.