IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41334 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2026 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Birendra Chaudhary @ Virerdra Chaudhary S/o Ram Swarup Chaudhary @ Ram Shavrup Chaudhary R/o Village- Bhagvanpur, P.S. - Silao District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr.Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bhagalpur Cyber P.S. Case No. 29 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have cheated Rs. 47,61,000/- in the name of giving franchise to Zudio. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is in custody since 26.04.2026. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41334 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026 2/2 5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has been found to be involved in committing fraud and cheating Rs. 47,61,000/- in the name of giving franchise to Zudio. Considering the fact that materials have come during investigation to connect the petitioner with the crime, 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