Rinki Devi vs State of Bihar — 105/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 406,419,420,467,468,471. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Bail

CNR: BRBU100015602026

e-Filing Number

27-02-2026

Filing Number

1360/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

105/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Buxar

Judge

3-Dist. and Addl. Ses. Judge I

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 04-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

41

Police Station

BUXAR CYBER

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 406,419,420,467,468,471
I.t. Act 2000 Section 66(c)66(D)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rinki Devi

    Adv. Akhil Kumar Prasad

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of orderView PDF

    The Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar rejected the bail petition of Rinki Devi in a cyber fraud case involving charges under IPC sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and IT Act sections 66(C), 66(D). The court found the offense serious based on evidence showing the petitioner allegedly conspired with co-accused to defraud 34+ village women by fraudulently opening bank and SIM accounts using their Aadhaar cards, resulting in unauthorized transactions and frozen accounts. The court noted the High Court had already rejected her previous bail petition and found no fresh grounds to reconsider. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Dist. and Addl. Ses. Judge I

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Dist. and Addl. Ses. Judge I

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Dist. and Addl. Ses. Judge I

  6. 28-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 105/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar rejected the bail petition of Rinki Devi in a cyber fraud case involving charges under IPC sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and IT Act sections 66(C), 66(D). The court found the offense serious based on evidence showing the petitioner allegedly conspired with co-accused to defraud 34+ village women by fraudulently opening bank and SIM accounts using their Aadhaar cards, resulting in unauthorized transactions and frozen accounts. The court noted the High Court had already rejected her previous bail petition and found no fresh grounds to reconsider. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case