Chhotu Kumar @ Ajay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62874 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Nawada ====================================================== Chhotu Kumar @ Ajay Kumar S/O Matlu Singh @ Amit Kumar R/O VillageKunj, P.S.- Roh, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Choubey Jawahar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 85 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 303(2), 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 111 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on getting an information about online loan fraud, the police raided Kunj Garden and apprehended four suspects while three fled away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. Learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62874 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026 2/2 petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. No specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. The alleged mobile has been recovered from the co-accused. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, in my view, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T