Patna High Court
Sumit Ranjan @ Sumit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that, given the seriousness of the alleged Aadhaar fraud and related offences, pre‑arrest bail could not be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Sumit Ranjan, sought pre‑arrest bail after the police registered a case alleging offences under sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the BNS and sections 65, 66, 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, in collusion with co‑accused, illegally accessed the Aadhaar system, used the informant’s biometric data to carry out fraudulent Aadhaar enrollments, and committed impersonation, identity theft and electronic forgery. Evidence presented indicated that the petitioner performed the L1 and L2 processes by capturing the informant’s iris and fingerprint data and uploading it to his system. The court examined the seriousness of the alleged offences, the potential for misuse of biometric data, and the risk of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence. Considering the gravity of the accusations and the circumstances, the court rejected the petitioner's prayer for pre‑arrest bail, effectively denying bail.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate discretion of the court in granting or refusing pre‑arrest bail for offences under sections 318(4), 319(2) of the BNS and sections 65, 66, 66C, 66D of the IT Act, 2000?
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 318(4), 319(2)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 65, 66, 66C, 66D
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Aadhaar fraud
- identity theft
- electronic forgery
- Information Technology Act
- BNS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83201 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- West Champaran
======================================================
Sumit Ranjan @ Sumit Kumar S/O Kanhaiya Prasad @ Kanhaiya Lall R/O
Village - Indrapuri, P.S - Bettiah Town, Distt.- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Patel , Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad , APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 05-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered
for the offence punishable under sections 318 ( 4 ), and 319
( 2 ) of BNS and sections 65 , 66, 66 (C) and 66 ( D ) of the IT
Act, 2000.
3 . As per the prosecution case , informant namely ,
Babita Kumari reported that she is working as Aadhar
operator in +2 High school and this petitioner in connivance
with other co-accused persons unauthorisedly accessed the
Aadhar system and misused, the informant’s biometric data to
carry out illegal Aadhaar enrollment, amounting to cheating,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83201 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
2/2
impersonation , identity theft and electronic forgery .
4. During course of investigation , it has come that it
was this petitioner who did L1 , L2 process by virtue of taking
IRIS and finger prints of ten fingers of informant and he
uploaded the same into his system.
5 . Considering the nature of accusation , gravity of
offence and other circumstances of the case, prayer for pre-
arrest bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Koushik/-
U T
Checking your session…