Patna High Court
Dipak Kumar @ Deepak KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Dipak Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a cyber‑fraud case (Cyber P.S. Case No. 33 of 2025) alleging that he, along with a co‑accused, induced villagers to open bank accounts and obtain SIM cards for fraudulent transactions. The prosecution charged him under Sections 318(2), 319(2), 303(2), 111, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(b) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, asserting that a gang was formed to commit phishing‑related fraud. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated due to a personal land‑boundary dispute, highlighted a 14‑month delay in filing the FIR, and argued that no overt act was alleged against him. The court examined the seized bank documents, SIM cards and the nature of the alleged phishing scheme, noting that the investigation was ongoing and custodial interrogation might be required. Considering the seriousness of the alleged offences and the risk of tampering with evidence, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 111, 303(2), 318(2), 319(2), 3(5)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66(b), 66(d)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cyber fraud
- phishing
- Information Technology Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- delay in FIR
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86379 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Khagaria
======================================================
Dipak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar S/o Vishundeo Singh @ Vishnudev Singh
Resident of Village- Dharampur Banni, P.S.- Maheshkhunt, District- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anish Chandra, 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 Cyber P.S. Case No. 33 of 2025
registered for the offence under Sections 318(2), 319(2),
303(2), 111, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
66(b)/66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the FIR
lodged by Santosh Kumar alleged that the petitioner along
with co-accused Ashish Raj allegedly induced the
informant and others to open bank accounts and obtain
SIM cards on the pretext of providing jobs. They took
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86379 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
control of the bank documents and SIMs, which were
later used for committing Cyber fraud involving
transactions worth crores of rupees.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated
in this case on the basis of ulterior motive. He further
submits that from bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that
the alleged occurrence took place on 06.07.2024, whereas
the present case has been lodged after an inordinate delay
of approximately 14 months, and no plausible explanation
has been given by the informant for such delay, which
creates serious doubt over the entire prosecution case
against the petitioner. The specific accusation is that the
informant had gone with Ashish Raj to the banks in
question, and Ashish Raj who took the informant’s
passbooks, ATM cards, cheque book, and mobile SIM
cards, and also assured him regarding the job and salary;
no specific overt act has been alleged against the
petitioner. No incriminating evidence has come on record
during the course of the investigation. The petitioner was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86379 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
neither associated with the co-accused Ashish Raj nor did
he participate in the alleged occurrence in any manner.
Learned counsel lastly submits that the informant and the
petitioner are co-villagers, and there is dispute regarding
the boundary of land which is pending between them for
which informant falsely implicated the petitioner in the
present case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the materials on record. The police seized
passbooks, ATM Cards, cheque book, and mobile SIM
cards from accused persons. They allured the victims and
opened bank account of about 20 to 25 villagers and also
obtained SIM cards in their names in order to conceal
their identity while committing Cyber fraud. The accused
persons appear to have formed a gang to defraud the
innocent public. The 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86379 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
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…