Patna High Court
Vivek KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court denied bail, holding that the petitioner, alleged to be the mastermind of the cyber fraud, is not entitled to regular bail.
Summary
Vivek Kumar applied for regular bail in a cyber‑fraud case involving alleged fraudulent operation of a current account of M/s Shambhu Fish Supplier. The prosecution alleged that between January and February 2025 the account received over 11,800 small‑value credits amounting to Rs. 1.59 crore and that Kumar, in exchange for commission, facilitated the account’s internet‑banking operations, acting as the mastermind behind the fraud. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated due to village politics, had no complaints against his mobile numbers, and that a co‑accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail, asserting Kumar’s role in the scheme. The court, after reviewing the investigation and statements, concluded that Kumar appeared to be the mastermind and therefore denied the bail application, noting the observation was prima facie and not a judgment on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite allegations of being the mastermind of a cyber‑fraud involving banking transactions.
- Whether the allegations and evidence presented justify denial of bail under the relevant provisions of the B.N.S. and the Information Technology Act.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 318(4), 3(5), 61(2)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66(c)
Subjects
- bail
- cyber fraud
- banking fraud
- Information Technology Act
- B.N.S.
- commission
- prima facie observation
- small‑value transactions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91773 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Vivek Kumar S/o Late Madan Mahto R/v- Puranbigha, P.S.- Pandarakh,
Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 23-04-2026 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Sheikhpura (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 03 of 2025, registered for the
offences punishable under sections 318(4), 61(2) read with
section 3(5) of the B.N.S. and section 66(c) of the I.T. Act.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, in
substance, is that on 10.02.2025, upon information from the
Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Sheikhpura, the police
examined current account standing in the name of M/s Shambhu
Fish Supplier and found its operation to be highly suspicious,
inasmuch as, from the very inception of the account,
innumerable small-value credits were being received throughout
the day, while the account holder, one Shambhu Kewat, failed to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91773 of 2025(5) dt.23-04-2026
2/4
furnish any satisfactory explanation for the same. On
verification through the Samnvay J.I.M.S and N.C.R.P portals,
three cyber fraud complaints were found linked to the said
account, including direct first-layer credits from accounts of the
complainants on the aforementioned portals. The bank statement
further disclosed that between 14.01.2025 and 10.02.2025, the
account had received 11,860 small-credit transactions
aggregating about Rs. 1,59,08,390/- and 149 debit transactions
aggregating about Rs. 1,54,64,920.40. During interrogation, the
accused allegedly disclosed that the account, GST details and
SIM cards had been procured and handed over for operation by
the petitioner in lieu of a commission.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is
alleged to have fraudulently operated the current account
standing in the name of M/s Shambhu Fish Supply and of
having committed cyber fraud.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has been falsely been implicated in
the case due to village politics and the petitioner has not cheated
anyone. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the police have implicated the present petitioner
merely on suspicion. It is next submitted by the learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91773 of 2025(5) dt.23-04-2026
3/4
for the petitioner that the mobile numbers of the petitioner and
his wife were checked by the Cyber Police and no complaints
had been made against the mobile numbers of the petitioner or
his wife.
6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 07.11.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.
23521 of 2025 titled as ‘Shambhu Kewat vs State of Bihar’ had
enlarged the co-accused Shambhu Kewat on regular bail. It is
lastly submitted that the present petitioner has clean criminal
antecedent and he is in custody since 31.10.2025.
7. Learned APP for the state has vehemently
opposed the prayer for regular bail and has submitted that the
petitioner used to pay commission to the co-accused Shambhu
Kewat for operating the net-banking facilities of the current
account and was engaged in cyber fraud.
8. From the perusal of the records, it appears
that the present petitioner was engaged in fraudulently operating
the bank account of M/s Shambhu Fish Supplier. The co-
accused Shambhu Kewat in his self-inculpatory statement had
stated that the petitioner, who had earlier stayed with him in
Delhi, had induced him in lieu of commission to use the G.S.T
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91773 of 2025(5) dt.23-04-2026
4/4
credentials of the aforesaid M/s Shambhu Fish Supplier, and
thereafter got the current account opened in Bank of
Maharashtra which was being operated by the petitioner through
internet banking. The investigation against the co-accused
Shambhu Kewat had been completed and the charge sheet was
submitted, however, the investigation against the present
petitioner is still going on.
9. Considering the fact that the petitioner is
alleged to have been the mastermind behind the cyber fraud, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the application stands
dismissed.
11. It is made clear that, any observation made
herein is prima facie in nature, limited solely for the purpose of
the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the
trial. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…