Patna High Court
Rohit TiwariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail, holding that the petitioner may be required for custodial interrogation and the seriousness of the alleged cyber‑fraud warrants denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Rohit Tiwari, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he was likely to be arrested in a cyber‑fraud case (Bettiah Cyber P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024) involving offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120‑B of the IPC and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the IT Act. The prosecution’s case rests on the confessional statement of co‑accused Sandeep Kumar Pal, who alleged that the petitioner was part of an organised gang that opened fake bank accounts, UPI IDs and carried out phishing‑type frauds. No incriminating material was seized from the petitioner and he claims to be innocent with no criminal antecedent. The court examined whether the allegations, supported by the co‑accused’s statement and the seizure of devices from other gang members, justified denial of bail and the need for custodial interrogation. Concluding that the investigation was ongoing and the petitioner could be required for interrogation, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail. The bail prayer was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the allegations and the co‑accused’s confessional statement.
- Whether the absence of seized material from the petitioner precludes denial of bail.
- Whether custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the investigation.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66(c), 66(d)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cyber fraud
- IPC
- IT Act
- custodial interrogation
- organized crime
- phishing
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86333 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2024 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- West Champaran
======================================================
Rohit Tiwari S/O Brij Kishore Tiwari Resident of village - Pandey Tola,P.S-
Nautan,Dist- West Champran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharad Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pd., A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
4 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties concerned.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Bettiah Cyber P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024
registered for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467,
468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section
66(c)/66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on
25.06.2024 at about 11:30 a:m, the S.H.O. of Cyber Crime
Police Station, Bettiah received secret information that one
co-accused Sandeep Kumar Pal along with some other
persons are engaged in Cyber fraud and has illegally opened
bank accounts in different banks and engaged in illegal
transaction of money in these accounts. The police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86333 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
proceeded for verification and when police arrived at the
house of Sandeep Kumar Pal he tried to flee away but he
was apprehended and disclosed that he along with other co-
accused persons make, Bank account, UPI ID, Wallet Id etc.
from different whatsapp numbers and was paid share in the
money, which is received by Cyber fraud. He further
disclosed that he has opened several bank accounts IDs,
UPI IDs and many transactions are being done through
electronic mobile and he disclosed the name of other co-
accused including this petitioner as his associates. It is
further alleged that mobile number and several bank
accounts, passbooks, ATM Cards were seized from his
possession and on the basis of disclosure statement of
Sandeep Kumar Pal, the police raided in the house of Vijay
Kumar and he was also apprehended and from his
possession two mobile phones, cheque book of different
banks were found, he also disclosed the name of his
companion, accordingly police raided at the house of
Naveen Kumar he was also apprehended and from his
possession a mobile, passbook of different bank account,
ATM Cards of different bank accounts were recovered.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86333 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
this case on the basis of confessional statement of the
arrested co-accused Sandeep Kumar. He further submits
that the petitioner is a bona fide person and was not
engaged in the alleged Cyber crime relating to cheating and
forgery along with other co-accused persons, who are
strangers to him. The petitioner has not been arrested by the
police on spot nor any incriminating article has been
recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and
petitioner is having no criminal antecedent.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials on record. The apprehended persons
has disclosed that they, including the petitioner, operate an
organized gang for committing cyber crime. The police
seized numerous cell phones, passbooks, ATM Cards from
the co-accused persons and the allegation against the
petitioner is that he along with others was committing
Cyber fraud by opening fake bank accounts/transaction/
UPI IDs and the fact that all accused persons appears to
have formed a gang to defraud the innocent public and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86333 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
phishing/cyber fraud is rampant in the area where the
attackers try to trick individuals into providing user names,
password and other details and are indulged in e-mail
phishing, voice phishing, SMS phishing etc. and the case is
still under investigation, for which, custodial interrogation
of the petitioner may be required, I am not inclined to grant
the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…