Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court has today (23 September) refused to grant bail to a man accused of cyber crime, remarking that cyber crime is like an addiction. It took note of the fact that the petitioner (accused) had three identical criminal antecedents against him. Noting that only one witness has been examined since last one year, it directed that the trial be completed within six months.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran made the observations while hearing a Special Leave Application (SLP) against the order of the Jharkhand High Court, which had rejected his bail plea.

The petitioner is an accused in a cyber crime pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-II cum Cyber Crime Special Court, Deoghar. He has been booked under Sections 111(2), 111(3), 111(4), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 66B, 66C, and 84C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).

The petitioner and his co-accused were apprehended with SIM cards and mobile phones. While rejecting bail plea of the petitioner, the Jharkhand High Court recorded that the seized phones revealed material impersonating Flipkart Customer Care, Amazon Customer Care, Airtel Payment Bank, PhonePe Customer Care, and the PM Kisan Yojna, allegedly indicating that the petitioner was involved in cybercrime. The High Court, thus, dismissed his bail plea. It, however, had expressed the expectation that the trial be concluded within six months from the date of order (10.07.2026).

Rejecting the plea, the Jharkhand High Court recorded as follows:

“5. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Cyber Crime Case No.160 of 2025 corresponding to Deoghar Cyber PS Case No. 132 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II cum Cyber Crime Special Court, Deoghar stands rejected.

6. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.
7. It is expected that the trial should be concluded within six months.”

Aggrieved by the High Court's ruling the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner submitted that he is in custody for the last one year and his co-accused in the case had already been granted bail by the High Court on the ground of being in custody for one year. It was also submitted that the petitioner is a young boy of 26 years, has a child to take care of, and has no other source of income. Flagging the slow pace of the trial, the petitioner contended that “in one year only one witness has been examined.”

Countering the submissions, the respondent (State) pointed out that the petitioner had three identical criminal antecedents registered against him.

Noting the fact of identical antecedents, Justice Pardiwala orally remarked, “cyber crime is like an addiction, as it is all easy money.”

Dismissing the bail application, the Court observed:

“The trial is in progress. One witness has been examined so far. Let the trial proceed expeditiously. We could have considered the plea of the petitioner for bail but for the fact that he has three identical antecedents. Let the trial proceed further and be completed within six months from today.”

On the bench's recording that the petitioner has three identical antecedents, Counsel for the petitioner apprised the bench that the counsel is aware of only one such antecedent. The Court, thus recorded that “however, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits his client only has one antecedent, and not three antecedents.”

Considering the aforesaid, the Supreme Court declined to grant him bail.

Case: Pintu Das @ Pintu Kumar Das v State of Jharkhand (Diary No. 51817/2026)

Appearance:

For Petitioner: Mr Anurag Ojha, Adv

For Respondent:


Tags: