Supreme Court reverses Justice Sandeep Kumar's order denying regular bail because charge sheet filed, co-accused already granted bail in a cyber crime case

In Raja Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti passed an order dated April 30, 2026, wherein, it granted bail in a cyber crime case. It reversed the 2-page long order by Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court. 

The petitioner is implicated in a case pursuant to Cyber P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025 registered with Lakhisarai Cyber Thana under Sections 318(4), 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology  Act, 2000. Section 318 (1) (2) (3) of BNS deals with the offence of  cheating. Its corresponding Section in IPC Section 415. 

Section 318 (1) BNS reads:"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat. Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section." It cognizable, non-bailable and triable by Magistrate of the First Class.

Section 318 (4) of BNS deals with punishment for cheating. It reads:"Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 

Section 319 (1) of BNS defines cheating by personation. It reads:"A person is said to cheat by personation if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for or another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. Explanation.—The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person."

Section 319 (2) of BNS has provision for punishment for cheating. It reads:"Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both." The offence is cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate. 

Section 66 C of the Information Technology Act deals with identity theft. It reads:"Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of the electronic signature, password, or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to one lakh rupees.”

To establish guilt under Section 66C, the prosecution must prove fraudulent or dishonest intention while using another person’s credentials, use of electronic identity, such as password, signature, or biometric and absence of lawful authorization to use the said digital identity.

The offence attracts imprisonment up to 3 years and fine up to ₹1 lakh. Section 66D reads: "Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource.–Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees." The offence is cognizable, bailable, and compoundable. 

Notably, Ritu Kohli case (Delhi Cyber Cell, 2001) is a landmark case of cyberstalking and identity theft. The accused misused the victim’s identity on a chat platform, leading to harassment. It directly established the applicability of Section 66C for digital impersonation. 

Supreme Court noted that the Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and has filed the charge sheet on March 31, 2025. The petitioner was arrested on March 1, 2025 and is in jail since then. One of the co-accused ‘Deepak Kumar’ has already been granted bail in the matter. The trial has not commenced and there are five listed witnesses. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the Trial Court will take at least one year to complete the examination. 

Supreme Court concluded: "5. In the facts and circumstances, we consider it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court commensurating with the charges, if any, framed against him including surrendering of his passport, if any, with the Trial Court itself."

In the High Court, the order dated January 9, 2026 by Justice Kumar heard the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by order dated May 6, 2025. The order noted that the petitioner, was in custody since March 1, 2025. He had sought regular bail in connection with the Cyber P.S. Case. As per the prosecution case, the Cyber Police Station on getting complaint of cyber fraud raided the place of occurrence from where the petitioner and others were apprehended. The Police had raided the place after tracing Mob.No. 9007683902. One mobile phone with dual sim has been recovered and from a bag in the room, three mobile were recovered from the petitioner, . From the place of occurrence, one Laptop and one copy was recovered and in the copy, many mobile numbers were written and cyber criminals were making calls on those mobile numbers.

Justice Kumar had concluded:"5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a cyber fraud who was caught by the Cyber Police who committed raid at the place of occurrence and recovered a number of incriminating articles, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected.” 5. This Court finds no new ground to review its earlier order dated 06.05.2025. 6. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed." But Supreme Court felt persuaded to grat bail to the petitioner.