Dismissed¶19

Vikki Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Apr 2026CR. MISC./90384/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.90384 of 2025, decided 01-04-2026 by Partha Sarthy, J. Regular bail application by Vikki Yadav (resident of Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh) in Kuchaikote P.S. Case No.337 of 2025, District Gopalganj, registered under sections 420, 379 and 34 IPC; opposed by State (APP Ajay Kumar Jha). Allegations of cyber fraud: mobile number linked to informant's daughter's account through CSP operator enabling illegal withdrawals; recovery of 83 Aadhar Cards and three PAN cards reported. Bail rejected; liberty to renew prayer after six months or on framing of charge. Keywords: regular bail, cyber fraud, CSP operator, Aadhar card recovery, online fraud, IPC 420, IPC 379, IPC 34.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to renew prayer for bail after six months or on framing of charge, whichever is later. ¶19

Vikki Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90384 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-337 Year-2025 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj

¶3

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

¶4

Vikki Yadav. Son of Harihar Yadaw. Resident of Village - Rampur Bnagara, P.S.- Tareya, Sujan, District - Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prasoon Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶8

5 01-04-2026

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

The petitioner has preferred this application for

¶11

grant of regular bail in connection with Kuchaikote (Gopalganj) P.S. Case no.337 of 2025 registered under sections 420, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

As per the prosecution case, the informant states that she had taken her daughter for opening an account. There she had given her daughter’s mobile number to the CSP operator to link the same with the account, however another mobile number was linked to her daughter’s account and as a result of which illegal withdrawals were being made by the accused persons including the petitioner herein. During this period, the informant states that her daughter received a communication

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90384 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026 2/3

¶14

from the Cyber Nodal Police Station Division of Madhya Pradesh and thereafter on making inquiries it transpired as to what all had taken place. On going to the CSP, the informant states that the accused persons started to abuse and threaten to assault her and her daughter. They somehow escaped.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the reason that the CSP referred to by the informant in the F.I.R. is being run by his brother. The allegations are all false and concocted. No offence has been committed by this petitioner who is in custody since 31.7.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

¶16

The prayer for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State who referring to the order of the learned trial Court submits that the petitioner got his mobile number linked to the bank account of the informant’s daughter and started committing illegal transactions from her account. On the petitioner being caught, 83 Aadhar Cards and three PAN cards of different persons were recovered from the CSP. Substantial material has transpired in course of investigation to connect the petitioner with cyber fraud.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90384 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026 3/3

¶19

taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. being one of online cyber fraud and the material that has transpired in course of investigation, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

¶20

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months or on framing of charge, whichever is later.

¶21

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶22

avinash/-

Vikki Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikki Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Kumar Ram Vs The Union of India

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Chandramauli Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Budhan Shah Vs The State of Bihar

Raju Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Afsar Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar