Shailesh Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shailesh Kumar, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Nawada Cyber P.S. Case No.115 of 2025, registered for offences under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleges that a raid led to the apprehension of Anuj Kumar, who implicated the petitioner as an associate in a cyber-fraud scheme. This scheme involved fake height-increase medicine and a bogus lottery, collecting money through registration, TDS, and GST. Seized mobile phones contained customer data, bank details, and payment screenshots. The petitioner's counsel argued that his name surfaced solely based on the co-accused's confessional statement, no incriminating material was recovered from his residence, and the co-accused has already been granted bail.
Held
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The reasoning was primarily based on the fact that the petitioner's name emerged in the FIR solely on the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accused, Anuj Kumar. This co-accused had already been apprehended from the spot and subsequently granted bail by the concerned court. The Court found this circumstance sufficient to incline towards granting the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The operative directions included releasing the petitioner on bail upon arrest or surrender within thirty days, furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, and adhering to the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), along with specific conditions regarding bailors, court appearances, witness interaction, and refraining from further criminal offenses.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) given that his name has transpired in the FIR based solely on the confessional statement of a co-accused, and no incriminating material was recovered from his possession or residence. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that his involvement is based only on the confessional statement of co-accused Anuj Kumar, who has since been granted bail. Furthermore, no incriminating articles were recovered from the petitioner's house during the police search in his absence, and the seized items do not belong to him. Therefore, the grounds for his apprehension are weak. Revenue/State's Contention: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Sections Cited
Section 438, Section 482
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 2 19-11-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Nawada Cyber P.S. Case No.115 of 2025, F.I.R dated 21.07.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 303(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 111, 317(2) and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. According to prosecution case, on 21.07.2025, a police raid in village Chakwai led to the apprehension of Anuj Kumar, who tried to flee. A mobile phone was recovered from him, and two Oppo phones were seized from a nearby house. Anuj admitted these devices were used in a cyber-fraud scheme involving fake height-increase medicine and a bogus Tata Safari 2/4 lottery through which money was collected as registration, TDS, and GST. He named Akash Kumar, provider of mobiles, accounts, QR codes, and customer data, Shailesh Kumar, the petitioner being an associate and Sashi Kumar, provider of bank accounts. The seized devices contained customer data, bank details, payment screenshots, and identification documents related to the fraud.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, namely, Anuj Kumar, who was apprehended from the spot, the name of the petitioner has transpired in the present case and no incriminating material has been recovered on search being made by the Police from the house of the petitioner on his absence. The seized article does not belong to the petitioner and the co-accused person, on whose confessional statement, the petitioner has been roped in the present case has also been granted the privilege of bail by learned Court below.
Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that his name has transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, namely, Anuj Kumar, who was 3/4 apprehended from the spot, who has been granted bail by the learned Court concerned. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VIth, Nawada, in connection with Nawada Cyber P.S. Case No.115 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or 4/4 promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; (iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
sharun/- (Ajit 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.