Mohit Chaudhary Alias Harsh Aditya vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40798 of 2025

¶3

Mohit Chaudhary Alias Harsh Aditya

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Gaurav Pundir
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 68

¶7

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Gaurav Pundir, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Yagyavalka Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 at the instance of the applicant Mohit Chaudhary @ Harsh Aditya, has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 305 of 2024 under Section 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2) of BNS and Section 66 D of the I.T. Act, Police station-Cyber Crime, District-Ghaziabad, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant before the Court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, vide order dated 30.08.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.08.2025.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant have vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely roped in this very case crime number for ulterior motives.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report. The First Information Report giving rise to the present Case Crime number in facts makes reference to one Mobile No. i.e. 8761945061 and 6 Bank accounts without disclosing the name of the holders. It was alleged in the First Information Report that the complainant received a message on his Facebook ID from a Facebook ID named Riya Jaiswal claiming to be resident of Gondia district of

¶12

BAIL No. 40798 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

Maharashtra and owner of Riya Imperial Hotel and that she had earned millions by investing in trading. The said Riya Jaiswal is alleged to have messaged the informant again and convinced him of investing funds into trading activities. The informant is stated to have invested a sum of Rs. 23,50,000/- by transferring funds into various beneficiary accounts detailed in para 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is argued that the applicant has been implicated in this case on account of being a beneficiary of a deposit of Rs. 50,000/- on 11.09.2024 in an account standing in the name of Workbox Digital Solution (Bank of India) No. 7122201100005664 UTR/ Reference 425533164677. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the false implication is on account of misusing his photo and identity documents for opening the Bank account. It is argued that the applicant name is Harsh Aditya S/o Naresh Mishra, R/o Plot No. 1103, Cheers Tower, Sikka Kaamna Greens, Sector-143 Noida, VTC Surajpur, District Gautam Budhh Nagar, U.P. and has no concern whatsoever with Mohit Chaudhary S/o Suresh Chaudhary. The applicant has never opened any fake account in the disputed Bank and his photographs and identity has been misused by some one to open account with different name. It has also been argued that the applicant has already suffered incarceration for almost 5 months, the applicant is not a flight risk and undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail if the same is granted. Two criminal antecedents have been duly explained in para 38 of the Bail Application. Hence bail has been prayed for.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail plea by submitting that the applicant is a beneficiary of the fraudulent transaction. Prima facie, complicity in the commission of the crime cannot be ruled out. The submissions is still going on. the applicant has criminal antecedents of being involved in similar crimes and in Case crime No. 318 of 2024 under Section 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2), BNS and Section 66 D of IT Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District-Ghaziabad the applicant is yet to be released on bail. Accordingly, it is submitted that the bail plea warrants rejection.

¶16

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the

¶17

BAIL No. 40798 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶20

This Court finds that in India, the rapid advancement of technology and the widespread adoption of digital infrastructure have led to a significant rise in cyber-crimes including phishing scams, ransomware attacks, cyber-stalking and data breaches. Initiatives like Digital India have accelerated the country's' digital transformation, but they have also exposed vulnerabilities that cyber-criminals exploit.

¶21

Cyber-crime has been affecting the people across the nation, irrespective of religion, region, education or class. Newspapers, Magazines, You Tube Channels and Social Media are brimming with ordeals of an uncountable number of innocent victim of the cyber-crime, who are defrauded of their hard earned money. Such cyber-crimes are rampant in our society, and must be curbed. Cyber-crime in our country is like a silent virus stealthy, disruptive, and costing society more than just money, but trust, security and progress.

¶22

In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶23

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶24

December 8, 2025

¶25

Deepak/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohit Chaudhary Alias Harsh Aditya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Chaudhary Alias Harsh Aditya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Moin vs State of U.P.

Pramod and Another vs State of U.P.

Ankit Alias Shivam vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sunita vs State of U.P.

Mohit Chaudhary Alias Harsh Aditya vs State of U.P.