Govinda Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42409 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-252 Year-2026 Thana- PARSA District- Saran ====================================================== Govinda Kumar Son of Late Jai Mangal Ram Resident of Village- Baksanda, P.S.- Parsa, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Majid Mahboob Khan, Advocate For the State :
Md. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Parsa P.S. Case No. 252 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 339, 340(2), 341(3), 342(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 of the Adhar Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, there is recovery of multiple forged Aadhaar cards containing different names and addresses, electronic equipment i.e., Desktop, fingerprint scanner, mobile phone and illegal government stamps, forged birth certificates fake and forged other documents were recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42409 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2026.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the allegation of cyber fraud and recovery of forged documents, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T