Govind Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67618 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Nawada ====================================================== Govind Kumar S/o Ram Pravesh Chouhan R/o Village - Beldariya, P.S - Ramgarh, District - Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Amit Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 03-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 66,66(D) of the I.T. Act, 2000.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is alleged to have cheated several persons by using mobile number 8348771454 on the pretext of providing online loans. It is further alleged that he lured people by offering loans in the name of Bajaj Finance and obtained money through Whatsapp. During search, PAN card and bank-related documents were recovered from his possession.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67618 of 2025(3) dt.03-02-2026 2/2
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. There is no transaction in the petitioner's account and he has clean antecedent.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner was arrested and a mobile set was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The investigating authority found that WhatsApp messages had been sent to the mobile numbers of the persons who had been cheated.
6. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges of bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T