Vikas Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91964 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Banka ====================================================== 1.

Vikas kumar son of Ram Das Yadav Resident of village Barbasini, Police Station-Katoria, District- Banka.

2.

Dilip Kumar Son of Binod Yadav Resident of village Pipradih, Police Station-Katoria. District- Banka.

3.

Manish Kumar Son of Ajay Yadav Resident of village - Pipradih, Police Station-Katoria,District- Banka.

4.

Chandra Shekhar Yadav Son of Late Daho Yadav Resident of villageMothbadi, Police Station- Katoria, District- Banka. 5.

Pradip Kumar Son of Sunil Yadav Resident of village - Doodhi Jharna, Police Station-Odhani Dame, District- Banka.

... ... Petitioners.

Versus

The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party. ====================================================== WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 496 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Banka ====================================================== Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Kumar Yadav S/O Hira Yadav Resident of village - Belatikar, P.S- Jasidih, District- Deoghar(Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party. ====================================================== WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 711 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Banka ====================================================== Baidyanath Yadav @ Baidnath Kumar @ Baijdyanath Kumar @ Baijnath Kumar @ Baijdyanath Yadav Son of Tarni Yadav Resident of VillageBarbasini, P.S.- Katoria, District- Banka. ... ... Petitioner.

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 91964 of 2025) For the Petitioners :

Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Md.Najmul Hodda, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 496 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Md.Najmul Hodda, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar No.2, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 711 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91964 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026 2/3 Mr. Md.Najmul Hodda, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 As all these bail applications arise out of the same police station case number, with consent of all the parties, they have been heard together for final disposal at this stage itself.

2. Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Md. Najmul Hodda for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

3. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 336(3), 340(2), 318(3), 318(4), 111(3) and 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66 (C) and 66 (D) of the I.T. Act.

4. As per the prosecution case, all these petitioners are engaged in cyber fraud through the online platform 'WIN ADDA'. During the raid, several mobile phones, ATM cards, SIM cards, a laptop and two motorcycles were recovered.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that recovery of mobile phones, ATM cards and other articles have been made from the possession of these petitioners, however they are bona fide owners of the said articles. It is further submitted that no incriminating material has been collected against them during the course of investigation but on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91964 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026 3/3 mere suspicion and on confessional statement of petitioner, Vikas Kumar, all these petitioners are in custody since 08.11.2025 and chargesheet has been submitted.

6. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that these petitioners are engaged in cyber fraud, as such they do not deserve the privilege of bail.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioners, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Soni Shrivastava, J) Trivedi/- U T