IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22093 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- East Champaran ====================================================== Jitendra Kumar Son of Bhairav Sah Resident of Village- Kashi Pakari, P.S.- Rajepur, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Motihari Cyber P.S. Case No. 192 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 316(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the I.T. Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, the official informant had received several complaints regarding a Bank account maintained in Bandhan Bank standing in the name of one Bharat Prasad from whose account about 1.45 crore rupees were transacted within a span of three days. When the aforesaid Bharat Prasad was questioned by the official informant, he revealed that the petitioner had taken the pass-book, cheque Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22093 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 2/2 book, ATM and sim card linked with the bank account, subsequently, from the possession of the petitioner three mobile phones, one motorcycle, six sim cards, two sim covers and a cheque book was recovered. 4. The petitioner has confessed his guilt to have been involved in cyber fraud. The petitioner has also revealed the name of other gang members. 5. The petitioner is in custody since 19.12.2025. 6. Considering the fact that the petitioner was involved in a cyber fraud and is a member of a cyber fraud gang, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. 8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express any opinion on the merits of the case. P. Kumar (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T