Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23084 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-634 Year-2024 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Santosh Kumar S/o Ram Swarup Kumar @ Ramswarup Mahto R/o VillShahabad, PS-Katrisarai, Dist-Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ravindra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Laheri P.S. Case No.634/2024, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 66©/(d) of the I.T. Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that Chandan was apprehended withdrawing money from ATM and from his possession money, fake ATM card etc. were recovered and he disclosed that he commits such offences at the instance of petitioner, who is his cousin brother-in-law.

4. The learned counsel submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant based on confessional statement of apprehended accused in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23084 of 2025(2) dt.01-05-2025 2/2 police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. It is further submitted that petitioner is not related to Chandan in any manner. It is also submitted that petitioner is a student.

5. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Ravindra Kumar opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that these days cyber offences have become rampant and no one is safe, the investigation of the case is in its nascent stages and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T