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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail refused. Directions issued: Superintendent of Police, Saharsa to ensure witness attendance in the trial; Trial Judge to expedite the trial without unnecessary adjournments to the prosecution; copy of the order to be communicated through FAX to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Saharsa and the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 13.05.2024 in Saharsa Cyber P.S. Case No. 33 of 2024 for offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, Sections 66, 66C and 66D of the IT Act and Section 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act, should be granted regular bail. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the gravity of the offence and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in X v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, the Court was not inclined to grant regular bail and dismissed the (second) bail application.

Ratio / Principle

Superintendent of Police, Saharsa directed to ensure attendance of the witnesses in the trial on the dates fixed; Trial Judge directed to expedite the trial and not grant unnecessary adjournments to the prosecution; copy of the order to be communicated through FAX to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Saharsa and the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — regular bail — second attempt — dismissed. Param Kumar, in custody since 13.05.2024 in Saharsa Cyber P.S. Case No. 33 of 2024 (District Saharsa) for offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, Sections 66, 66C and 66D of the IT Act and Section 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act, sought regular bail; his first application was rejected vide order dated 21.08.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 58317 of 2024. As recorded in the earlier order, the petitioner and other criminals were alleged to be involved in a cyber crime; different ATM cards and cheque books were recovered during search and the accused persons were members of a cyber fraud gang. Counsel for the petitioner urged that, in the trial, only 2 of 8 witnesses had been examined. Held (Sandeep Kumar, J.), considering the gravity of the offence and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in X v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, the Court was not inclined to grant regular bail and dismissed the application. The Court, however, directed the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa to ensure the attendance of the witnesses in the trial on the dates fixed and the Trial Judge to expedite the trial without granting unnecessary adjournments to the prosecution, with a copy of the order to be communicated through FAX to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Saharsa and the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa for compliance forthwith.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28639 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2024 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Saharsa

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

Param Kumar S/o- Santosh Kumar Resident of Village- Bengaha ward No 4/10 PS-Saharsa, Dist- Saharsa

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Balkrishna Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

3 01-08-2025

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned APP for the State.

2 . This is the 2^nd attempt of the petitioner. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 21.08.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 58317 of 2024.

3. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offence under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 66, 66© and 66(D) of the IT Act and Section ¾ of the Public Gambling Act.

4 . The following order was passed on 21.08.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 58317 of 2024:-

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Saharsa Cyber P.S. Case No. 33 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28639 of 2025(3) dt.01-08-2025 2/3

465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 66, 66© and 66(D) of the IT Act and Section 3/4 of the Gambling Act.

The petitioner and other criminals are alleged to have been involved in a cyber crime. During search different ATM cards and cheque books etc. have been recovered from them. The accused persons are members of cyber fraud gang. The petitioner is in jail since 13.05.2024.

Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that sufficient material has come during investigation to connect the petitioner with the crime.

Considering the fact that petitioner is involved in cyber crime, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

This application for regular bail is

dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

though the petitioner is in custody since 13.05.2024 but in the trial, out of 8 witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined till date.

6 . Considering the gravity of the offence and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby dismissed.

7 . However, the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa is directed to ensure the attendance of the witnesses in the Trial on the dates fixed and the Trial Judge is also directed to expedite the trial. He will not grant unnecessary adjournment to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28639 of 2025(3) dt.01-08-2025 3/3

prosecution.

8 . Let a copy of this order be communicated to the

Principal District & Sessions Judge, Saharsa & the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa through FAX for its compliance forthwith.

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

Shishir/-

U