Sujit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31740 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2024 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Gaya ====================================================== Sujit Kumar S/O Ramuttam Mahto @ Ram Bilash Mahto R/O Katari Hill, Near F.C.I. Godam, P.S- Chandauti, Distt.- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prabhat, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2025 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 punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 111, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the I.T. Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, 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 falsely been implicated in the present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31740 of 2025(2) dt.09-05-2025 2/2 the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is an employee of the company and there is no allegation levelled against him of being involved in any such activity. The petitioner has nothing to do with the affairs of the Company and has no concern with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2024 and has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP 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 APP for the State further submits that the prayer for bail of co-accused person has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 13507 of 2025. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial and conclude the same expeditiously. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T