Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15212 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Nalanda ====================================================== Rahul Kumar S/O Pintu Kumar Resident of Village- Karinga, P.S.- Manpur, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Payal Sinha A.S.I. Bihar, P.S.Bihar, District Nalanda ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar No. I, Adv For the State :

Mr.Ramchandra Sahni, APP For the Opposite Party :

Mr Dhirendra Prasad Sinha, Adv Ms. Prinka Kumar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 02-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with POSCO Case No. 03 of 2025 arising out of Nalanda Cyber P.S. Case No. 01 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 61(2) of the BNSS of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner was involved in business of child pornography and after inquiry he confessed that he was involved in cyber-crime.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15212 of 2025(4) dt.02-07-2025 2/2 submits that no one come forward to make any complaint with respect to the alleged crime. Petitioner's name has been figured only and only due to the suspicious. It is also submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.01.2025 having one criminal antecedent.

5. However, learned APP for the State oppose the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that allegation levelled against the petitioner are of quite serious nature.

6. On perusal of the FIR, impugned order dated 11.02.2025 and entire case diary, it appears that petitioner used minor children for making commercial pornography video and cyber fraud which is apparent from paragraph 8 and 16 of the case diary and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Sunnykr/- U