Rinki Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7771 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2024 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Buxar ====================================================== Rinki Devi, W/o- Rishi Ram @ Rishi Kant Ram, resident of Village- Dhansoi, PS-Dhansoi, Dist- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Buxar(Cyber) P.S. Case No. 41 of 2024 dated 25.10.2024 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of I.T. Act.
3. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner and co-accused, namely, Mamta Devi told various women of the village that Prime Minister is giving Rs. 200/- per month to women holding B.P.L. Cards. To take this advantage, all the women of the village got a new SIM card in their names by giving their Aadhar card. The fee charged for getting the SIM was also paid by the petitioner and Mamta Kumari. After this,
2/4 the petitioner and Mamta Kumari again took the Aadhar Card of all the women and got online accounts opened for 34 women in different banks and ATM cards given by the banks were also kept by them. On 10.10.2024, the petitioner told the informant that her account has been freezed due to technical issue and Rs. 13,000- from the said account has also been freezed. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs. 10,000/- to withdraw Rs. 13,000/- from the said account and also to get her account active. Later on, the informant found that fraudulent transactions were being made from her account. It is alleged that the petitioner and other accused persons committed cyber fraud with the informant and other women.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is herself the victim of the circumstances. No transaction has been made in the account of the petitioner. As per the F.I.R., the petitioner got opened account of 34 victims and all the account holders gave passbooks and ATM Cards to the petitioner who claimed to have withdrawn huge amount as mentioned in the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of
3/4 arrest, seizure list was made and only one mobile has been seized. Nothing has been seized in this case as alleged by the informant. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 27.10.2024 having no criminal antecedents. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner stating that in course of investigation, it has been found that 103 Aadhar cards have been used by the petitioner and co-accused to open account in different banks. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the member of gang which commits cyber fraud. In the order of learned Sessions Judge, four fraudulent transactions in four account numbers have been mentioned which shows that Rs. 1,50,046/-, Rs. 2,15,696/-, Rs. 88,550/- and Rs. 23,490/- have been credited in account of Rina Devi, Urmila Devi, Sakina Begum and Champa Devi respectively which was withdrawn later on by other suspected persons.
6. Since there is specific allegation against the petitioner that she committed cyber fraud, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
7. Accordingly the prayer for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner stands rejected.
4/4
8. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and take all endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest, preferably, within a period of nine (9) months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. In the event, the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew her prayer for bail after the expiry of nine months.
(Khatim Reza, J) premchand/- U T