Patna High Court
Jishan KhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner’s alleged receipt of Rs 7,00,000 and the surrounding circumstances indicate participation in the offence, and therefore bail was not warranted.
Summary
The petitioner, a student, applied for regular bail in a cyber‑fraud case registered under sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 66(D) of the IT Act. The FIR alleges that the informant was duped into transferring Rs 19,00,000 to an account of Nitin Narendra Anjole, from which Rs 7,00,000 was subsequently credited to the petitioner’s IndusInd Bank account. The petitioner contends that he was falsely implicated, had no knowledge of the fraud, cooperated with the investigation, and has no criminal antecedents. The State and the informant argue that the petitioner’s receipt of the funds without seeking restitution demonstrates his participation in the conspiracy. After hearing both sides, the court found the chain of circumstances sufficient to infer the petitioner’s involvement. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 66(D) of the IT Act.
- Whether the facts establish a prima facie case of conspiracy or participation in the cyber‑fraud.
- Whether the petitioner’s cooperation and lack of antecedents warrant bail despite the alleged receipt of illicit funds.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 319(2)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66(D)
Subjects
- regular bail
- cyber fraud
- IT Act
- section 66D
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- conspiracy
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91686 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Jishan Khan S/O Anish Khan R/O Mohalla- L-32, Gali No.11, Mahendra
Park, P.S.- Mahendra Park, Distt.- North West, Delhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Bhojpur Cyber P.S. Case
no. 45 of 2025 registered under sections 318(4) and 319(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 66(D) of the IT
Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that he received a telephone call on his mobile phone from a
person who stated that he was an Officer of the ATS and that he
had the informant’s Aadhar and mobile number. The caller
further stated that a warrant of arrest had been issued in a case
from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Pune in the State of
Maharashtra wherein the informant was required to appear.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91686 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
2/4
Further on the suggestion that his name be removed somehow
and showing the fear of being taken into custody, it is stated that
he got the informant to transfer a total sum of Rs. 19,00,000/- by
RTGS which he transferred from his salary account in the State
Bank of India to an account in the Bank of Maharashtra, details
of which has been given in the FIR. The informant further states
that subsequently his friends mentioned that he may have been a
victim of cyber fraud. It is stated that he also received call on
the next day for issuance of some certificate and for further
payment of amount. Hence the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR
was registered against unknown. The petitioner was falsely
implicated in the case in course of investigation. The so called
amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- had been transferred from the account of
informant to the account of one Nitin Narendra Anjole in the Bank of
Maharashtra. The petitioner has neither any concern with the said co-
accused nor with his account. The petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the case for the reason that in course of investigation it
transpired that a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- had been transferred from the
account of the aforesaid Nitin Narendra Anjole to the petitioner’s
account in the IndusInd Bank. On receiving notice of the Cyber
Police Station, the petitioner has been cooperating in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91686 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
3/4
investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was
other co-acccused Nikku @ Shivam, Rakesh and Utkarsh who were
involved in the occurrence and on the pretext of a medical
emergency have taken away the said amount which they had got
credited in the petitioner’s account. The petitioner who is a student is
ready to cooperate in the investigation. He has no criminal
antecedent and is in custody since 25.10.2025. Chargesheet has been
submitted in the case.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned
counsel for the informant submits that there remains no dispute
that out of the Rs. 19,00,000/- transferred by the informant to
the account of the aforesaid Nitin Narendra Anjole in his account
in the Bank of Maharashtra, Rs. 7,00,000/- has been transferred to
the petitioner’s account in the IndusInd Bank. The chain of
circumstances being complete and the petitioner not having taken
any steps asking his Bank i.e. the IndusInd Bank for return of the
said amount, it clearly shows that he has also conspired with the
accused persons.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, the informant having transferred a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91686 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
4/4
to an account in the Bank of Maharashtra and a sum of
Rs.7,00,000/- having been transferred from the said Bank of
Maharashtra account to the account of the petitioner, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge
the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U T
Checking your session…