IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78757 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Vaishali ====================================================== Mandeep Kumar Son of Dinesh Sahni Resident of Village- Pahetiya, Ward No. 05, P.S.- Kazipur, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr.Meena Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of 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. 3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 18.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 37478 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), Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78757 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026 2/2 66(d) of the I.T. Act. 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.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges have been framed in the trial. 5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier order. 6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. 7. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. P. Kumar (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T