IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2876 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Vaishali ====================================================== Nikhil Kumar S/o Sh. Umakant Sahni Resident of village - Pahetiya, P.S.- Sadar Kajipur, Distt.- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Archana Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 12-02-2026 Heard the parties. 2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection Vaishali Cyber P.S. Case No. 10 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 3(5), 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 66(C ) & 66 (D) of the I.T. Act. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 18.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 37066 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Vaishali Cyber P.S. Case No. 10 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 3(5) and 61(2) of the BNS and under Section 66(c), 66(d) of the I.T. Act. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2876 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026 2/2 3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and other cyber frauds were caught along with mobile phone, laptop etc. 4. It has come during investigation that the petitioner and other co-accused were cheating the people after opening mule accounts and getting the frauded money transferred in those accounts. 5. The petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2025. 6. Considering the serious allegation of cyber fraud, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges have been framed. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order. 5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again. tusharika/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T