Bhola Kumar Mandal @ Bhola Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46808 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2026 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Purnia ====================================================== Bhola Kumar Mandal @ Bhola Kumar S/o Sri Suhdir Mandal Resident of vill- Tharhi, Chandrahi, P.S- Barhara Kothi, Distt.- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime and Security Unite, Bihar, Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP For the CCSU :

Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 21-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel on behalf of Cyber Crime and Security Unit, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as 'CCSU') and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 41 of 2026 instituted for the offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 221, 222, 223, 229, 237, 238, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 66, 66(c), 66(D), 73, 74 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 of the Aadhar Act.

2/4

3. That the prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of confidential information received by the Cyber Crime Unit (CCSU), Patna, regarding the use of illegal websites for preparing forged government documents such as Aadhaar Cards, EPIC Cards, Residence Certificates, Birth Certificates and PAN Cards in Purnea district, Cyber P.S. Case No. 40 of 2026 was instituted. During raids conducted on 02.05.2026 and 03.05.2026, the police allegedly apprehended accused Mehfooz Alam, Bhola Kumar Mandal (petitioner) and Raja, while accused Rizwan fled from the spot. It is alleged that laptops, electronic devices, login credentials of illegal websites, forged government documents and other incriminating materials were recovered from the accused persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. No specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence nor there is any material to show that petitioner prepared forged government

3/4 IDs. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 03.05.2026 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel on behalf of CCSU have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel jointly submitted that the petitioner is involved in a well-organized cyber fraud racket engaged in preparing forged government documents through illegal websites. It is further submitted that during investigation, incriminating digital devices, forged documents and other materials were recovered, which establish the petitioner's complicity in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the offences are grave in nature, involve forgery of public documents and misuse of digital platforms for unlawful gain, and therefore, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence as also the recovery of huge number of incriminating articles which, prima-facie, show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

4/4

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T