CR. MISC./46018/2026 of Sonu Kumar Srivastava Vs The State of Bihar on 17 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

17-08-2026 Since both the applications arise out of Saran Cyber P.S. Case No. 36 of 2026, as such, they have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

02. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sonu Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner Md.

Wasim and learned APP for the State as well as learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Cyber Crime & Security Unit.

03. In the present case, the petitioners seek bail in connection with Saran Cyber P.S. Case No. 36 of 2026 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 112, 3(5) of BNS and Sections 66(C) & 66(D) of I.T. Act.

04. As per prosecution case, the informant police official received an order regarding verification of mule accounts and a suspicious account bearing Account No. 59840200000318, IFSC Code - BARBOPRABHU from which illegal transaction of Rs.3,51,37,762/- had been made on different dates. The account holder was found to be co-accused Md. Sirajuddin. On further investigation, co-accused Md. Sirajuddin disclosed that his account was being used by the petitioner Md. Wasim. When petitioner Md. Wasim was interrogated, he further named co-accused persons Ashutosh Kumar and Vishal Kumar, who on interrogation disclosed the name of the petitioner Sonu Kumar Srivastava, who gave them allurement of making fast buck through commission of cyber crimes and offered them a portion of the amount from the proceeds of cyber crime. On search of the house of petitioner

Sonu Kumar Srivastava, a personal diary containing account numbers of a number of persons/entities in different banks was seized. This diary also contained details of ID, Passwords, transactions etc for these accounts. Further seizure was made of cheque books of different persons/entities of different banks. Subsequently, it has also been disclosed by the petitioner Sonu Kumar Srivastava that he was involved in a number of cyber crimes in which complaints have been registered in different states. The allegation against the petitioners and co-accused persons is that of organized criminal conspiracy using the digital means for committing crime of identity theft, impersonation, misuse of identity, cheating and illegal inducement and sysmetic laundering of the proceeds of cyber crime causing loss to a number of persons and gain for the accused persons.

05. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Sonu Kumar Srivastava submits that the petitioner has committed no offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of the co-accused persons and confessional statement of any co-accused persons could not be used against other co- accused persons at the time of consideration of regular bail or anticipatory bail. For this the learned senior counsel relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Krishna Mohan Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598. Learned senior counsel further submits that the Information Technology Act is a Special Act and if the offences are covered by the provisions of the I.T. Act there could be no applicability of the BNS for similar offences as the special law would prevail over the general law. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Sharat Babu Digumarti Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 1222 of 2016) and Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Criminal Application No. 2562 of 2019) and other cases by the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court. Learned senior counsel further submits that moreover, on the facts of the case, the account from which transaction of Rs. 3,51,37,762/- has been made does not belong to this petitioner. So, the petitioner is not connected in any manner with the account in question. Learned senior counsel further submits that there are no independent witnesses and the witnesses to the seizure list are all police officials. Learned senior counsel also submits that though it has come during investigation that the petitioner was involved in opening the account for a number of persons but the same would remain mere allegation in absence of any material showing the connection of the petitioner with those accounts or the petitioner making any gain from those accounts. Learned senior counsel reiterates that when FIR has been instituted with specific allegation that the fraud was committed in connection with Account No. 59840200000318 to the tune of more than three crores and there is no material to show connection of the petitioner with the said account, no offence is made out against the petitioner. In any case offences under I.T. Act are bailable in nature. The petitioner is in custody since 27.02.2026. The petitioner is having clean antecedent and charge sheet has been submitted.

06. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Md. Wasim while adopting the argument made on behalf of petitioner Sonu Kumar Srivastava, further submits that except the allegation that co-accused Md. Sirajuddin allowed this petitioner to use his account, no material has come up against the petitioner. There is no material to show that the petitioner gained in any manner and received proceeds of cyber crime. Learned counsel also submits that there is no allegation against this petitioner that he was beneficiary of the cyber crime as alleged since nothing has come on record in this regard. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Whatever allegation has been made against this petitioner, it is without any substantive material. The main allegation is against co-accused Sonu Kumar Srivastava, who appears to be the mastermind behind all the alleged cyber crimes. The recovery of mobile phone, cheque book, diary etc. has been made from co-accused Sonu Kumar Srivastava. The petitioner is having clean antecedent and he is in custody since 27.02.2026. Charge sheet has been submitted.

07. Learned APP as well as learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Cyber Crime & Security Unit vehemently oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Cyber Crime & Security Unit submits that the police got information on the complaint made to NCRP Portal and thereafter, came to know about some mule accounts in which proceeds of crime were being deposited and withdrawn. During investigation, the police came to know about petitioner Md. Wasim, who has been using the account of co-accused Md. Sirajuddin and he further disclosed the names of other co- accused persons and finally the name of petitioner Sonu Kumar Srivastava came to light and from Sonu Kumar Srivastava a diary was seized in which various account numbers of different banks were mentioned. Details of these accounts and transactions made were also mentioned in the diary. Subsequent investigation also shows that the petitioner Sonu Kuma Srivastava was instrumental in opening these bank accounts in the name of other persons and proceeds of crime were deposited in these accounts and withdrawn through ATMs etc. Learned senior counsel further submits that through one such account transaction of more than two crores has been made. Then a number of incriminating articles were seized from the petitioner Sonu Kumar Srivastava and petitioner Md. Wasim had been found actively helping him. Learned counsel also submits that the matter is still under investigation though considering the statutory time period charge sheet has been submitted against these petitioners. Learned senior counsel also submits that the petitioners are accused for committing interstate cyber crimes at a massive scale having wider ramification and therefore the investigation is taking time. The release of the petitioners may hamper the trial.

08. Having regard to the submission about applicability of only I.T. Act, when the offences alleged are not similar to the offences under I.T. Act, it is made clear that mere incorporation of provision of I.T. Act would not take out the offences from the purview of the BNS if ingredients of such offences are present.

09. Considering the material uncovered during the investigation showing the involvement of the petitioners, interstate nature of crimes and its ramifications and further considering the seriousness of allegations, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and hence, their prayer for bail is rejected.

10. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and take steps for early conclusion of the same.

11. The personal appearance of the investigating officer and the Incharge of Cyber Crime & Security Unit is dispensed with.

DKS/- (Arun Kumar Jha, J) U T