Supreme Court sets aside regular bail denial order of Patna High Court in a cyber crime case of fake document based 231 mobile numbers from Rampur Chandraman, Mahuwa, Vaishali

In Anwarul Haque vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar passed a 5-page long order dated September 22, 2026, wherein, it granted leave and allowed the appeal. It concluded:"10. We have gone through the same as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the CBI. We find that case of the appellant is almost identical to that of the co-accused Mukesh Mahto who has been granted bail by the High Court. That being the position and considering the fact that appellant is in custody for almost 14 months now, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant. 11. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 25.03.2026 and direct that the appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court  within a maximum period of 7 days from today whereafter he shall be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate."

The appellant was aggrieved by the order dated March 25, 2026, passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court wherein, the regular bail application of the appellant was rejected. The appellant is an accused in Economic offences P.S. Case No.16 of 2025, registered before the Economic Offences Unit Police Station, Patna, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 111, 61(2), 3(5), 42(1), 42(2), 43(3) and 42(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66, 66(c), 66(d) and 72 of the IT Act. (now registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation, (CBI). The appellant was arrested on July 21, 2025 and since then he has been in custody. The allegation against the appellant is that he is involved in a large scale cyber fraud in connection with which a large number of fake sim cards have been recovered. The Court had issued notice on May 13, 2026. In the proceedings held on August 18, 2026, the Supreme Court had called upon the CBI to file an updated status report regarding the present status of the investigation. 9. Pursuant thereto, CBI has filed updated status report. It was in  this backdrop that the High Court's order was set aside. 

Earlier, in Anwarul Haque vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Kumar of the High Court had passed a 2-page long order dated March 25, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"6. Considering the fact that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is of large scale cyber fraud and the fact that large number of fake sim cards have been recovered, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. 8. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial." The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking bail in connection with Economic Offences P.S. Case No. 16 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 111, 61(2), 3(5), 42(1), 42(2), 43(3), 42(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 66, 66(c), 66(d) and 72 of the I.T. Act. 

As per the prosecution case, a large scale sim box found was recovered in Vaishali Dstrict, Bihar in which several POS (Point of Sale) were activated and around 231 mobile numbers using fake documents were found. These sim cards were supplied to a sim box setup operating in Gopalganj and Siwan District. Between June 2025 and July 2025 these sim cards were used to generate more than 51,000 calls and international, VOIP calls were converted into local calls. The fraud enabled cyber crime such as phishing calls, fake refund, scams, credit card fraud and customers care scams targeting victims across Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Jharkhand and other states. The High Court's order recorded that the petitioner is in custody since July 21, 2025.

Supreme Court reverses anticipatory bail order by Patna High Court

In Yuvraj Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran passed a 4-page long order dated September 7, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"we are of the opinion that the petitioner can be released on anticipatory bail...." It recorded that the petitioner was not apprehended from the place of occurrence, that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The order reads: "3. We note that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, and was implicated in the offence on the basis of a confession made by one of the co- accused, specifically one of the Directors of Urmila Education and Services Pvt. Ltd. 4. We further note that the co-accused had been released on regular bail by this Court on 13.07.2026, considering the aspect that all the offences are Magistrate triable, and that the entire case is based on documentary evidence." 

The petitioner was denied anticipatory bail by the 2-page long order dated April 30, 2026 by Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court in connection with FIR No. 5117063251028/2025 registered at Jakkanpur Police Station, District Patna for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 303(2), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.The allegation was that of conducting a fraudulent recruitment drive to Patna Metro, through the creation of a fake website on which the fraudulent recruitment was advertised. The recruitment was conducted by Urmila Education and Services Pvt. Ltd., the Directors of which are also arrayed as accused. 

As per the prosecution case, some criminals were caught holding interview on behalf of one Urmial Education and Service and Pvt. Ltd. It was found that it was a company promising private jobs and was involved in cheating. It emerged during investigation that the petitioner, Akhilesh Yadav and others had made a plan for cheating unemployed candidates and therefore they gave an advertisement in the name of Patna Metro and Urmila Education and Service Pvt. Ltd. and started collecting money and holding the interview. The bail application of similarly situated co-accused namely, Akhilesh Kumar @ Akhilesh Yadav @ Akhilesh Kumar Yadav had been dismissed by Justice Kumar's 2-page long order dated March 16, 2026. Unlike the Supreme Court, Justice Kumar was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and had dismissed the application.
 

Supreme Court sets aside anticipatory bail denial order by Justice Satyavrat Verma in a ca se from Govindganj, Motihari

In Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih passed a 5-page long order dated June 3, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "6. It is not in dispute that the conditions stand fully complied with; the appellant has cooperated during the investigation; he has not threatened or intimidated any of the witnesses; or has tried to influence the investigation in any manner. 7. We have noticed the nature of crime and the manner in which it was allegedly committed. 8. We allow the present appeal by confirming the order dated 21.04.2026, passed by this Court, with a direction to the appellant to continue to cooperate during the investigation/trial and not to seek any unnecessary adjournment. Also, the appellant shall report before the
Investigating Officer every alternate Monday, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., till such time the investigation is complete in all respects. 9. If the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/Trial Court feels that the investigation/trial is delayed on account of the appellant’s conduct, it shall be open to the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/Trial Court to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law, including cancellation of bail. 10. Further, if the appellant possesses a passport, the same shall be surrendered before the Competent Authority/Court until the conclusion of the trial or directed otherwise. 11. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.03.2026 is set aside."

The appellant had challenged the judgment and order dated March 24, 2026 in Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar”, passed by Justice Stayavrat Verma of the Patna High Court. 

On April 21, 2026, the Supreme Court had passed an order, which reads: "6. In the event of arrest in connection with FIR No. 280 of 2025, registered at Govindganj Police Station, District Motihari, Bihar dated 20.11.2025, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Investigating/Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as imposed and found to be just, fair and reasonable."

Earlier, in Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Verma had passed a 3-page long order dated March 24, 2026, wherei, he had concluded:"the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected." The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 303(2), 336(4), 340(1), 340(2), 308(5), 61(2) and 111(1) of the BNS, 2023.  

Ajay Kumar Thakur, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that petitioner had antecedent of one case and the informant alleged that petitioner called him on his mobile and introduced himself as having business of jewellery and called him to Muzaffarpur for buying jewellery, the informant went to Muzaffarpur and saw jewellery worth crore of rupees and said that he will come back with money, accordingly, the informant along with his friend went to buy jewellery, but before reaching Muzaffarpur, made a call when petitioner asked him to come near Areraj accordingly, the informant along with his friend went to the place where he was called by the petitioner, further the petitioner took him to the hose of Amresh and disclosed that the house is also for sale and showed jewellery, further petitioner in the meantime made a call when 7-8 accused on 3-4 motorcycles came and took Rs. 19 Lakhs along with other articles and started fleeing, when his friend caught an accused who disclosed his name as Surendra and also disclosed that petitioner, Amresh and others are part of organized gang who fled with the articles and cash. 

The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, it was also submitted that the mobile from which the informant got a call does not belong to the petitioner. It was submitted that even the informant dealt in business of purchasing looted jewellery. It was further submitted that petitioner was engaged in business with one Neha Kumari, wife of the brother of the petitioner and the informant had given money to Neha but when the deal failed, the instant false case came to be instituted.

A.P.P. for the State had opposed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submitted that Neha is also an accused in the instant case. It was also submitted that if informant was dealing in purchasing looted jewellery in that event the same would surface during the course of investigation and appropriate action would be taken, but then as far as the petitioner was concerned, the mobile may not belong to him, but when informant before reaching Muzaffarpur called him on the mobile from which he had received a call from the petitioner earlier, the same was picked by petitioner again. It was submitted that the informant specifically alleged that petitioner along with others were operating an organized crime. It also submitted that investigation of the case is continuing and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

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. 

Supreme Court issues notice against Justice Sandeep Kumar's denial of bail in an Examination Scam Case

Upon hearing the special leave to appeal in Aditya Kumar @ Anshu vs. The State of Bihar Through Economic Offences Wong (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih issued notice, returnable on December 8, 2025. Its 2-page long order dated October 3, 2025 reads:'' 2. Respondent-State of Bihar may file its counter affidavit at least 48 hours prior to the returnable date. Such affidavit ought to include, inter alia, the 1following: (i) Particulars of chargesheet, if filed; (ii) Number of witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution;(iii) Whether charge has been framed or not; (iv) If the charge has not been framed/the trial has not commenced, as the case may be, the reason therefor; (v) If the trial has commenced, the number of witnesses examined and; (vi) Any other information relevant for a decision on the special leave petition.'' 

Upon hearing in Aditya Kumar @ Anshu vs. The State of Bihar Through Economic Offences Wong (2025), Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court had passed a 7-page long order dated August 6, 2025, wherein, he was "not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail." 

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking bail in connection with an Economic Offence P.S. case of 2024 registered for the offence under sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) read with section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, under sections 66, 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under sections 3 and 10 of the Bihar Public Examination Act, 2024.

According to the prosecution case, the informant namely, Kumar Veer Dhirendra, had submitted a written report to the officer-In-charge of the Economic Offence Police Station, Patna stating therein that pursuant to the advertisement of the Bihar State Health Society, for the recruitment of 4,500 Community Health Officers, a computer based test was scheduled for December 1, 2024 and December 2, 2024. On November 30, 2024, the Economic Offence Unit, received confidential information that some malpractice is being done in the examination and thereafter, a team was constituted under the leadership of the D.I.G., EOU, Bihar for verifying the said information. While collecting intelligence, it was found that a cheating racket infiltrated the examination system and the owner of the examination centre, Superintendents, IT Managers, IT support staffs, invigilators, and employees of ‘We Shine Tech’, the company which was conducting the examination, were actively involved in facilitating this fraud. Thereafter, on December 1, 2024 the EOU team raided Ekam Evolutions Private Limited Examination Centre, Ashopur and it was found that a proxy server was installed, enabling unauthorized remote access to the examination computers. The centre owner and IT Manager namely, Amit Kumar and Adarsh Raj were present there. Realizing the situation, the officials of the E.O.U. secured the said place and proceeded to inspect other Examination Centres. Upon reaching at Wire Online Exam Centre, R.K. Puram, they found that even there the proxy server had been illegally connected to the network, enabling unauthorized remote access. Upon questioning, the Superintendent of the aforesaid Examination Centre namely, Ravi Bhushan failed to give any satisfactory reply regarding these irregularities. Thereafter, the team proceeded to ACME Institute of Information Technology, located on Ghordoud Road, Patna and after a technical inspection it was found that there was an unauthorized additional lease line and some articles were also recovered which indicated towards the fraudulent activities taking place there. When the suspected persons including the petitioner, who was deputed as an Examination Coordinator, did not disclose any detail regarding the scam, a search was conducted at all Examination Centres and the seized articles were sent for forensic examination. 

Thereafter, another round of questioning was done at the centres and search was also conducted through videography and some articles were seized and four persons were apprehended. Thereafter, the team inspected and raided several Examination Centres and also found irregularities and seized the incriminating articles and detained the suspects. After an intense interrogation, the apprehended persons, confessed to their involvement in the said crime during the examination of the Community Health Officer and they further gave their modus operandi that they had installed an unauthorized lease line at the Examination Centres, allowing them to remotely access the systems using software such as ‘Ammyy Admin’. During the confession, the apprehended persons also disclosed that 12 Examination Centres across Patna were compromised in this manner. 

On the basis of the above written report, the Police drew up a formal first information report and registered a case being Economic Offence Unit Patna P.S.Case No.28 of 2024 dated December 2, 2024.

Justice Kumar observed:''....it appears that the petitioner is involved in the examination scam. The petitioner is the room partner of co-accused Ashish Ranjan, I.T. Manager at Wire Online Examination Centre, R.K. Puram, Patna, who has stated that the petitioner is also involved in the examination scam. Thereafter, the flat of said Ashish Ranjan and present petitoiner was searched, from where A.T.M. cards, mobile phones, cheque books, Aadhar Cards and other documents were recovered. During investigation, it has come that the petitioner had got the Ammyy Admin Application installed in the computers of the examination centre through co-accused Ashish Ranjan.''