High Court · 2025

1. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present applicant–Neeraj Bhatt S/o Sri Govind Prasad Bhatt, resident of District Jaipur, Rajasthan is seeking bail in relation to first information report dated 27.09.2024 bearing FIR No. 0073 of 2024, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Dehradun, which was lodged by one Mahipal Singh against unknown offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged by the informant at Police Station Cyber Crime Dehradun allegation informant-Mahipal Singh received a phone call allegedly from Mumbai Police Sub- Inspector who informed the informant that a crime has been committed by using the Adhaar Card and Mobile Number of the the call. informant and disconnected Subsequent thereto, on the same date, the informant also received whatsapp message from Mobile Number 9831042639 on his mobile number i.e. 7983473875 and subsequently received a video call, wherein a person in police uniform was sitting in front and inform the informant that a money laundering has been committed by using his Adhaar Card and Mobile Number up to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs and the

27.09.2024 with 09.09.2024, twenty police will arrest the informant soon and gave instruction to the informant to not travel anywhere, to which he agreed. Next day, he received a whatsapp call from Mobile Number 9831042639 and allegedly one Sub-Inspector Vinod Kumar Chobey provided another mobile number of a police official, namely, Akash. Thereafter, on whatsapp some notices were sent, and, thereafter, the informant deposited a total sum of Rs. 2,27,22,717/- (Rupees Two Crore Twenty Seven Lacs thousand seven hundred seventeen) to separate accounts on different occasions from 11.09.2024 to 17.09.2024. It is contended by learned counsel for 5. the applicant that the applicant was not named in the FIR, however, he was arrested on 19.01.2025 from Jaipur near the hostel of the University of Rajasthan, where he is studying in 2nd year of BBA. 6. He submits that the applicant was having his account in AU Small Finance Bank wherein there was an account of one of the co-accused-Aditya Sharma, but since the account of Aditya Sharma was not working and blocked so he asked the applicant for help and informs that some amount will be deposited in his account, on this, the applicant agreed and subsequent there to, in the Month of September, 2024 an amount of Rs. 5.47 Lakhs were credited in the account of the applicant and it was withdrawn by him on the same date and after withdrawing the amount he handed over the entire amount to Aditya Sharma. Apart from this, he submits that there is no such evidence which connects the applicant with the offences as alleged and merely on the basis that the applicant withdrawn a sum of Rs. 5.47 lakhs from his account, the applicant was arrested. Learned counsel

7. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the entire allegations as alleged in the FIR is nothing but an attempt to extract the money under the garb of the digital arrest of the informant, in which the applicant is not involved and the main culprits are still absconding. 8. He further submits that against the present applicant, the charge-sheet has already been filed and he is in judicial custody since 19.01.2025 and as such there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant and the offences, in which the charge-sheet has already been filed, are punishable for less than 07 years and taking into consideration that there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant, the applicant be enlarged on bail. 9. for the applicant further argued that in the charge-sheet the cognizance has been taken by the trial Court. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history. 10. On the previous date, the Investigation Officer was asked to appear in order to apprise this Court about the status of the investigation and in compliance thereto, Mr. Devendra Navyal, the concerned Investigation Officer is present in the Court and apprise investigation is still going on and up till date, various persons including one lady belong to West-Bengal, are found to be involved in the said crime and all of them are still absconding. 11. He also submits that five accounts were operated, wherein the huge amount were credited, out of which, two Banks accounts are operating from Maharasthra and two bank accounts are operating from Jammu-Kashmir and the one bank account this Court is from Bihar operating by one Omkar Singh on behalf of the company known as R.D. Construction. Two Bank Accounts, which are from Maharasthra belong to Savariya Enterprises and Agnipankh Foundation and two Bank Accounts, which were operated from Jammu Kashmir, belong to one Faizal Ali and other one Mohd. Nazar. He also apprise to this Court that from two I.P. Addresses, the whatsapp call was done from “Cambodia”. 12. He also submits there are possibility that many persons are involved in this crime, who are operating different accounts from different countries. He submits that this is a well organized crime and so far as the present applicant is concerned, the huge amount of more than 15 lacs were credited in his account on single day i.e. on 13.09.2024 by way of three transactions i.e. Rs. 4,70,535/- Rs. 5,14,313/- and Rs.5,47,073/-. In support of this, he has shown the Adhoc statement of account of present applicant. 13. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that the offence is nothing but an organized crime relating to the Cyber Crime and though the charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant, but still the investigation against the rest of the accused, who belongs to the different States, is still going on, therefore, in such an eventuality, if the applicant is enlarged the ongoing on bail, investigation and is at a advance stage and the investigating agency doing best efforts. 14. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the allegations as alleged and the account statements of the present applicant which it may affect has been furnished by the Investigating Officer, and, furthermore, the investigation against the rest of the accused, who belongs to the different States, is still going on, this Court is of the view that the applicant at this stage does not deserve for bail. 15. Accordingly, the bail application of the present applicant is rejected. R.Bisht

30.07.2025 (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)