Rishi Jha @ Rishi Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49854 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Rishi Jha @ Rishi Kumar Jha son of Ram Jha Resident of Village -Habibhour Police Station -Bahera and District -Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nilendu Kumar Choudhary For the State :

Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad For CCSU :

Mr. Vijay Anand ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-07-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Cyber Crime Security Unit (CCSU), Sri Vijay Anand. 2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 111(2), 111(3), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 337, 338, 339, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that officials of Economic Offence Unit came to Cyber PS and shared information that a consignment of five sim box is to be delivered in Darbhanga by Raushan Kumar Jha, accordingly a trap was laid and Raushan along with Bittu were arrested, on their disclosure house of Devanand Thakur was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49854 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026 2/3 raided and 97 Airtel SIM card, 41 power banks, 6 hair trimmers, 4 Aadhar Cards, 2 mobiles and 7 Airtel Wi-Fi sets were seized, further from the house, Bobby Kalyan, a resident of Haryana, was arrested and he disclosed that he had formed a gang for committing cyber crimes in association with Raushan, Bittu, Sujit, Abhishek, Manish, Rishi (petitioner) and others and thereafter raids were conducted at other places from where Rs. 4 lakhs, 42 Vodafone SIM cards, and multiple JIO routers were seized as detailed in the FIR.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that based on disclosure made by Bobby Kalyan, the name of the petitioner transpired. It is also submitted that even the seized articles are not recovered from the house of the petitioner. It is further submitted that Nirmala Kumari, wife of Raushan, was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by an order dated 4-2-2026 in Cr. Misc No. 7452 of 2026.

5.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of CCSU, Sri Vijay Anand, vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that of late in the State of Bihar, cyber criminals have become active. It is next submitted no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49854 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026 3/3 doubt name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Bobby Kalyan in police custody but then the allegations are serious and requires to be investigated. It is further submitted that no doubt Nirmala Kumari was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, but then the anticipatory bail was granted on the ground that her husband Raushan was in custody. It is also submitted that informant specifically alleges that Economic Offence Unit had shared the information with Cyper PS with regard to consignment of 5 SIM box based on which trap was laid and the articles as detailed in the FIR were seized. It is next submitted that the case requires to be investigated from all perspective and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.

6.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of CCSU, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T