IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83127 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2024 Thana- CHHAURADANO District- East Cham- paran ====================================================== Haider Ali S/o Mohammad kamrool hoda Resident of Village- Mahuawa, Pu- rainiya, P.S.- Darpa, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad Mr.Dhurendra Kumar Mr. Sumit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anant Kumar 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 29-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of bail. Earlier his application was rejected vide order dated 26.06.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42955/2024. The order dated 26.06.2024 reads as follows:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 90 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66D of the I.T. Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners have been found involved in a case of cyber fraud. 4. The mobile phones and the details of the persons on whom the fraud was to be committed has been recovered Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83127 of 2024(3) dt.29-01-2025 2/2 from the petitioners. 5. The petitioners are in custody since 13.04.2024. 6. Considering the serious allegations of cyber fraud levelled against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. 8. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioners and conclude the same at the earliest. If the trial is delayed due to the fault of the prosecution side, then the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail. ” 3. Vide order dated 18.12.2024, a report has been called for from the trial court which has been received and kept at Flag ‘A’. 4. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that five witnesses have already been examined. 5. Considering the fact that the trial is going on, this application is dismissed again. 6. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the peti- tioner may renew his prayer for bail. Saif/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T