Dismissed¶20

Sunny Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC3 Nov 2025CR. MISC./17462/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.17462 of 2025, decided 03-11-2025 by Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J. Anticipatory bail application of Sunny Kumar rejected in a cyber-fraud case (Section 420 IPC; Section 66(D) IT Act) arising from Shahpur P.S. Case No. 110 of 2022, District Patna. Informant (Ranjit/Ranjeet Kumar) alleged an unknown caller obtained his account number and OTP on the pretext of adding his name in a Ration Card and withdrew money. Petitioner argued he was not named in the FIR and nothing was recovered; the APP relied on case diary paragraph-45 that the petitioner held the mobile from which the call was made. Anticipatory bail declined.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail; the anticipatory bail application is rejected. ¶20

Sunny Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17462 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2022 Thana- SAHPUR District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Sunny Kumar Son of Sri Mukesh Prasad @ Mukesh Kumar Resident of Village- Mubarakpur, P.S.- Shahpur, Distt.- Patna

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Ranjit Kumar son of Shyamrup Ray Resident of Village - Shahpur Raghopur, P.S. - Shahpur, District - Patna.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sagar Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 03-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

¶13

for the State.

¶14

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Shahpur P.S. Case No. 110 of 2022 registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section-66(D) of the IT Act.

¶15

The informant Ranjeet Kumar makes allegation that at the pretext of adding of his name in Ration Card, an unknown caller contacted him on mobile phone and he took his account No. and OTP. Thereafter, he withdrew money from the account of the informant.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17462 of 2025(4) dt.03-11-2025 2/2

¶18

case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. nor anything has been recovered from his possession to show his complicity in the cybre crime and even during investigation, the petitioner was not found concerned with the holder of the mobile number which is said to have been possessed by the petitioner.

¶19

The learned APP by drawing my attention towards paragraph-45 of the case diary, has submitted that the petitioner is holder of the mobile wherefrom call was received on the mobile set of the informant.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail and accordingly, the same is rejected.

¶21

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶22

A.K.V.//-

Sunny Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Shadab Khan @ Md. Shadab Barikhan Vs The State of Bihar

Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Jai Kishor Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Himanshu Kumar Verma Vs The State Of Bihar

Tarun Singh @ Gokhu Singh @ Tarun Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar @ Dilkhush Jha Vs The State of Bihar