Dilip Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Dilip Kumar, sought bail in Sheikhpura Cyber P.S. Case No. 02 of 2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66C of the IT Act. This was his second bail application, the first having been rejected on 25.06.2025. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner opened a bank account for M/S. R.K.P. Construction, which was later found to be suspicious due to numerous meager transactions. The petitioner allegedly stated he opened the account for business purposes on instructions from one Abhishek, receiving commission for transferring funds. The bank account saw credits totaling Rs. 24,16,455/- and debits totaling Rs. 20,83,255.48/- between 09.05.2024 and 06.02.2025. The petitioner also allegedly operated four other accounts with complaints against them. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating he is a businessman who fulfilled all norms for opening the account and that no fraud was committed by him.
Held
The Court rejected the petitioner's application for regular bail. The Court considered the submissions made by both the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The primary reasoning for rejecting the bail was the petitioner's involvement in cyber crime and the substantial financial transactions that had occurred in his bank account. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 07.02.2025 and that the trial was ongoing. However, given the serious nature of the allegations and the financial implications, the Court was not inclined to grant bail. The Court directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it at the earliest. No specific issue was left undecided; the Court directly addressed the bail application based on the presented facts and arguments.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in connection with Sheikhpura Cyber P.S. Case No. 02 of 2025, considering the allegations of cyber crime and significant financial transactions in his bank account? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he is innocent and falsely implicated. He claimed to be a businessman involved in construction and that he opened the bank account after fulfilling all necessary norms, including GST compliance. He contended that the FIR did not mention any fraud committed by him, nor had any individual filed a complaint against his account. He stated he cooperated with the police inquiry and that no incriminating articles were recovered. He asserted that there was no evidence of forgery and that he has a clean antecedent. He has been in custody since 07.02.2025. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State vehemently opposed the bail petition, submitting that the petitioner is involved in cyber crime along with co-accused, cheating innocent people. They highlighted that the bank account used in the alleged crime was in the petitioner's name and had seen substantial financial transactions. The State also pointed out that multiple complaints were filed against other accounts in the petitioner's name, and the investigation was ongoing.
Sections Cited
Section 66C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 8 12-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail in connection with Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 02 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66© of the IT Act.
Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 25.06.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 23450 of 2025, which reads as follows:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sheikhpura Cyber P.S. Case No. 02 of 2025 dated 06.02.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 2/5 and Section 66C of the I.T. Act.
As per the prosecution case, on 05.02.2025 on receiving an information by the informant from Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Sheikhpura Branch, that an account bearing A/C No. 60487378208 which is a current account of M/S. R.K.P. Construction and which was opened on 15.04.2024 seems to be suspicious and the account holder of thesaid account has visited the branch, the informant went to the said Branch and the Branch Manager informed him that at the time of opening different meager transactions were made in the said account. He further informed that on 29.01.2025, the account holder has prayed to increase the limit of Internet Banking to Rs. 10 Crores and thereafter a monitoring was done of the said bank account then it was found that in the entire day, several meager transactions took place in the said account. The Manager has given a letter of request to verify the account and when the account holder was asked about his name and address, he disclosed himself as the petitioner and also disclosed that he has opened the said account for the purpose of business as per instruction by one Abhishek. He has further informed him that some amount will come in the said account and further he has to transfer the same on the account numbers as informed to him by the said Abhishek for which he would receive some commission. The informant further said that the petitioner did not produce any document for his Institution. Further the mobile number of the petitioner was verified and it was found that he was talking to Abhishek Kumar regularly. The said petitioner further informed that the Net Banking and UPI are operated by Abhishek Kumar as he has given his Cheque Book, ATM Cardand Mobile Number 7870476824 which is linked to the account of Abhishek Kumar. The informant further stated that he received bank statement by 3/5 the Manager and found that many transactions have been made from 09.05.2024 and till 06.02.2025 and altogether 1174 times amount has been credited in the account which is Rs. 2416455/- and 83 times amount has been debited from the account which is Rs. 2083255.48/- and till date Rs. 333199.52/- is still in the account. It has also further come that the petitioner was operating four other accounts as well upon which four complaints are there which are regarding Rs. 400/-, 26000/-, 15000/- and 50,000/- respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioner is a businessman and is engaged in the work of construction and has opened the present account in the said bank after fulfilling all the norms as required for opening a current account in the said bank viz. GST was done and other documentation required were provided. The bank opened the account after getting satisfied of all the documents provided by the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R., no where it has been mentioned that any fraud was done. It is further submitted that no body has made complaintagainst the said account of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner was called by the police in the police station and he went there and replied all the questions and quarries as made by the police but the police arrested him stating only a line that some of the complaints have been found on other account of the petitioner. It is further submitted that if the petitioner is involved in cyber fraud he would not have gone to the police station or participated in the inquiry made by the police. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that except suspicion, there is nothing on record to suggest 4/5 any forgery has been committed with any individual by the petitioner in any manner. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, not a single independent witness has come forward before the police that forgery has been committed with them by the petitioner. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition. He is in custody in this case since 07.02.2025. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner is involved in cyber crime and he alongwith other co-accused persons used to cheat the innocent people. The account which was being used in the cyber crime is in the nameof the petitioner and from the date of opening, the account i.e., 15.04.2025 till date, several lakh rupees have been transferred to that account. He has further submitted that there are many accounts in the name of the petitioner as per the J.M.I.S. Portal, complaints have been filed on all the accounts and investigation is still pending.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and finding substance in the contention of the learned A.P.P. for the State, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is rejected in connection with Sheikhpura Cyber P.S. Case No. 02 of 2025, pending in the court of learned C.J.M. Sheikhpura.
The application stands rejected.
The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same at the earliest.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial is going on. The petitioner is in custody since 5/5 07.02.2025. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is involved in cyber crime and huge transactions have been made in the bank account of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.
Shishir/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.