Patna High Court
Vikki YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court rejected the petitioner's application for regular bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Vikki Yadav, applied for regular bail in a case registered under sections 420, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that he was falsely implicated because the cyber service point (CSP) involved was run by his brother. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner linked his mobile number to a minor's bank account and facilitated illegal withdrawals, also recovering multiple Aadhaar and PAN cards from the CSP. The petitioner claimed no criminal antecedent and asserted the allegations were concocted. The State opposed bail, citing material evidence linking the petitioner to the cyber fraud. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail, noting the seriousness of the online fraud allegations, and allowed the petitioner to renew the bail prayer after six months or upon framing of charge.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under sections 420, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the material evidence and seriousness of the alleged cyber fraud.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 379, 420
Subjects
- bail
- cyber fraud
- Indian Penal Code
- section 420
- section 379
- section 34
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90384 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-337 Year-2025 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Vikki Yadav. Son of Harihar Yadaw. Resident of Village - Rampur Bnagara,
P.S.- Tareya, Sujan, District - Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prasoon Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
5 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Kuchaikote (Gopalganj)
P.S. Case no.337 of 2025 registered under sections 420, 379 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that she had taken her daughter for opening an account. There
she had given her daughter’s mobile number to the CSP operator
to link the same with the account, however another mobile
number was linked to her daughter’s account and as a result of
which illegal withdrawals were being made by the accused
persons including the petitioner herein. During this period, the
informant states that her daughter received a communication
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90384 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
from the Cyber Nodal Police Station Division of Madhya
Pradesh and thereafter on making inquiries it transpired as to
what all had taken place. On going to the CSP, the informant
states that the accused persons started to abuse and threaten to
assault her and her daughter. They somehow escaped.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the
reason that the CSP referred to by the informant in the F.I.R. is
being run by his brother. The allegations are all false and
concocted. No offence has been committed by this petitioner
who is in custody since 31.7.2025 and has no criminal
antecedent.
5. The prayer for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for
the State who referring to the order of the learned trial Court
submits that the petitioner got his mobile number linked to the
bank account of the informant’s daughter and started
committing illegal transactions from her account. On the
petitioner being caught, 83 Aadhar Cards and three PAN cards
of different persons were recovered from the CSP. Substantial
material has transpired in course of investigation to connect the
petitioner with cyber fraud.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90384 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in
the F.I.R. being one of online cyber fraud and the material that
has transpired in course of investigation, the Court is not
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is
rejected.
7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his
prayer for bail after six months or on framing of charge,
whichever is later.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
U T
Checking your session…