Patna High Court
Amit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail petitions, directing the petitioners to be released on bail upon furnishing the prescribed bond and sureties.
Summary
The High Court considered two anticipatory bail petitions filed by Uttam Kumar and Amit Kumar, who were named in FIR No. 242 of 2025 for alleged cyber‑fraud offences under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. Police had raided the house of co‑accused Gautam Kumar and recovered debit cards, mobiles, cash and passports; the petitioners were present at the time of the raid as Gautam Kumar's brother. The petitioners argued that no incriminating material was found on them, that the search did not comply with Section 103(4) of the B.N.S., and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted arrest. The Court held that, on a prima facie basis, the material recovered was solely from Gautam Kumar’s premises and that the petitioners’ involvement was only speculative, and therefore granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail despite being present at the raid of a co‑accused's premises
- Whether the lack of incriminating material on the petitioners and alleged non‑compliance with search provisions justify bail
- Whether the allegations under the B.N.S. and IT Act warrant arrest pending trial
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(4), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 339, 3(5), 370(2), 482(2), 61(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66(C), 66(D)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cyber fraud
- search and seizure
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- Information Technology Act
- prima facie evidence
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87287 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-242 Year-2025 Thana- GRIYAK District- Nalanda
======================================================
Uttam Kumar @ Utam Kumar S/o Ajit Prasad R/o vill - Parmanandpur, P.S.-
Katrisarai (Giriyak), Distt.- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
With
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 91977 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-242 Year-2025 Thana- GRIYAK District- Nalanda
======================================================
Amit Kumar S/o Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Prasad Resident of village-
Permanand Pur, P.S.- Katari Sarai, District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 87287 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ritesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 91977 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anil Kumar No. I, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State in both these anticipatory bail petitions.
2. The accused-petitioners, named in the F.I.R., are
apprehending their arrest in connection with Giriyak
(Katrisarai) P.S. Case No. 242 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3),
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87287 of 2025(2) dt.09-02-2026
2/5
338, 339, 370(2), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’) and section 66(C) & 66(D) of
the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is to involve in
cyber fraud, where upon police raid, several debit cards,
mobile, sim cards, cash, passports etc. were recovered from
the house of co-accused Gautam Kumar. It is alleged that
petitioners were present at the time of raid conducted by
police.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner (in Cr. Misc. No. 87287 of 2025) submitted that
presence of the petitioner in the house of said Gautam Kumar
at the time of raid was only for the reason that petitioner is
own brother of said co-accused Gautam Kumar. It is
submitted that all incriminating materials recovered from the
house of co-accused Gautam Kumar and being brother of
Gautam Kumar, this petitioner was implicated in this case
without having any cogent material. It is pointed out that
compliance of section 103(4) of the B.N.S.S. regarding
search of the premises not appears to be followed in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87287 of 2025(2) dt.09-02-2026
3/5
present case.
5. While concluding argument, learned counsel
submitted that petitioner found involved in one more criminal
case of petty nature, in which he is on bail.
6. Arguing further, it is submitted that investigation
qua apprehended co-accused persons has already concluded
and, therefore, sending the petitioner behind the bar would
not serve any judicial purpose and also custodial interrogation
is not required in the present case.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer of
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
8. So far as petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 91977 of 2025
is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that name of this petitioner transpired
in this case only on the basis of disclosure of apprehended co-
accused persons and in furtherance of suspicion arising out of
disclosure, nothing incriminating material appears recovered
from possession of this petitioner. It is further submitted that
entire incriminating materials appears recovered from the
house of co-accused Gautam Kumar.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87287 of 2025(2) dt.09-02-2026
4/5
9. While concluding argument, it is submitted by
learned counsel that petitioner found involved in one more
criminal case related with excise matter, in which he is on bail.
10. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of the fact as prima facie all incriminating
materials appears recovered/seized from the house of co-
accused Gautam Kumar, where implication of petitioner
namely, Uttam Kumar @ Utam Kumar (in Cr. Misc. No.
87287 of 2025) prima facie appears only being brother of
said co-accused Gautam Kumar; and in so far as petitioner
namely, Amit Kumar (in Cr. Misc. No. 91977 of 2025) is
concerned, prima-facie save and except suspicion arising out
of disclosure statement of apprehended co-accused persons,
nothing incriminating material appears to be recovered from
possession of this petitioner namely, Amit Kumar,
accordingly, both petitioners namely, Uttam Kumar @ Utam
Kumar and Amit Kumar, in the event of their arrest/surrender
within a period of four weeks from this order, are directed to
be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87287 of 2025(2) dt.09-02-2026
5/5
each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Biharsharif, Nalanda /concerned court in connection with
Giriyak (Katrisarai) 242 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2)
of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short
“B.N.S.S.”).
11. Accordingly, both these anticipatory bail petitions
stand allowed.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.