Sunny Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17462 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2022 Thana- SAHPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Sunny Kumar Son of Sri Mukesh Prasad @ Mukesh Kumar Resident of Village- Mubarakpur, P.S.- Shahpur, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ranjit Kumar son of Shyamrup Ray Resident of Village - Shahpur Raghopur, P.S. - Shahpur, District - Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sagar Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 03-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Shahpur P.S. Case No. 110 of 2022 registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section-66(D) of the IT Act.

3. The informant Ranjeet Kumar makes allegation that at the pretext of adding of his name in Ration Card, an unknown caller contacted him on mobile phone and he took his account No. and OTP. Thereafter, he withdrew money from the account of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17462 of 2025(4) dt.03-11-2025 2/2 case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. nor anything has been recovered from his possession to show his complicity in the cybre crime and even during investigation, the petitioner was not found concerned with the holder of the mobile number which is said to have been possessed by the petitioner.

5. The learned APP by drawing my attention towards paragraph-45 of the case diary, has submitted that the petitioner is holder of the mobile wherefrom call was received on the mobile set of the informant.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail and accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T