Shankar Kumar @ Munna Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34432 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2024 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Saharsa ====================================================== Shankar Kumar @ Munna Singh S/O Virendra Ram @ Birendra Kumar R/O Village- Hansepur, Police Station Aungari, District Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Parwej Alam S/O - Late Yusuf Ansari, R/V Sonvarsha Raj, P.S. Sonvarsha Raj, District - Saharsa, Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 13-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Cyber (Saharsa) P.S. Case No. 44 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of I.T. Act.

3. Informant, Parvez Alam, lodged FIR stating therein that he received a phone call from mobile no. 6909425842 informing that he got sanctioned a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from one India Bull Personal Dhani Company Pvt. Ltd. for which he had to pay Rs. 1699/- as processing fee to petitioner's phone pe UPI Id and in the account of another co-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34432 of 2025(4) dt.13-10-2025 2/2 accused person. On assurance given by the caller, the informant sent money to the accused persons including the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. Petitioner is ready to deposit Rs. 1699/- in the account of informant. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that mobile phone of the petitioner was used in the alleged occurrence and money was deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the fact that mobile phone of the petitioner was used in the alleged occurrence and money was also deposited in his bank account, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) AjayMishra/- U T