Manoj Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79158 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Buxar ====================================================== Manoj Das Son of Sitlal das R/o Village - Sirsiya, P.S. - Devipur in the district of Deoghar(Jharkhand).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66, 66 (c) and 66 (D) of the I.T. Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to have committed cyber fraud.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the First Information Report has been lodged against unknown and the name of the petitioner has transpired in this case, subsequently, during the course of investigation, merely on suspicion based upon tower location. Thereafter, the house of the petitioner was raided and recovery

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79158 of 2025(5) dt.19-02-2026 2/2 of mobile phones along with Rs.2.40 lakhs was made from his house. Further, two mobile phones which have been recovered do not belong to the petitioner. As far as recovery of cash is concerned, it was kept in the house by the father of the petitioner for the purposes of marriage of his younger daughter. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a young boy of 20 years and has been in custody since 26.08.2025 with no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that there are specific allegations transpired against the petitioner during the course of investigation and he has confessed his guilt before the police also.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) Trivedi/- U T