Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15773 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2024 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Gaya ====================================================== Rohit Kumar S/o- Suresh Prasad Gupta Village- Dobhi Ps- Dobhi Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gaya Cyber P.S. Case No. 173 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Section 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 111, 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 66(C), 66(D) of the I.T. Act. 3.

As per prosecution case, the petitioner and other accused persons were running a call center and were committing Cyber fraud.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15773 of 2025(3) dt.11-04-2025 2/2 petitioner is simply an employee of Paynol Solution Private Ltd. and has nothing to do with the affairs of the Company and has no concern with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 01.12.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

5.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, stating that the offence alleged is serious in nature. Learned counsel for the State again submits that bail of similarly situated co-accused has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 2803-2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 13507 of 2025. 6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T