Three accused in a cyber crime case involving large money transactions through multiple bank accounts sought bail while at investigation stage. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail citing ongoing investigation. The court declined to grant bail and dismissed all three applications, permitting revival after completion of investigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:41543]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12729/2025
Meghraj Saini S/o Kajodram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Nichla Sonawa, Near Lamba Mahadev, Police Station Aravali Vihar, District Alwar (Raj.) (Presently Confined In Central Jail Alwar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13161/2025
Karan Yadav S/o Bharat Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Old Bhurasidh Police Station Aravali Vihar, District Alwar Rajasthan. (Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In District Jail Alwar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13185/2025 Vivek Yadav S/o Mukesh Yadav, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Meena Dharamsala Ke Pass, Nayabass, Police Station Arawali Vihar, District Alwar. (At Present Central Jail Alwar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Jaipur, Through Pp
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Nikhil Saini |
|---|---|
| Mr. Manish Gupta | |
| Mr. Abhimanyu Yaduvanshi | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Amit Punia-Addl.G.A. cum PP |
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
13/10/2025
[2025:RJ-JP:41543]
[CRLMB-12729/2025]
(2 of 2)
Counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are not involved in any cyber crime activity and they have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are in custody since the date of their arrest and trial will take its own time to conclude, therefore the indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioners.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submits that several cyber complaints have been received by the Police and after investigation, it was found that lakhs of rupees have been transacted through four accounts in the name of Karan Yadav and seven accounts in the name of Vivek Yadav and four different mobile phones belongs to the petitioner-Meghraj have been used in the commission of the aforesaid crime. Counsel submits that still the matter is at investigation stage, hence the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence of bail by this Court.
Considering the arguments raised by learned Public Prosecutor and looking to the fact that the matter is at investigation stage, this Court is not inclined to accept the bail applications submitted by the petitioners.
Accordingly, all these bail applications stand dismissed.
However, the petitioners would be at liberty to revive the prayer for bail after completion of investigation.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ashu/110-112
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, accused in a cyber crime case at investigation stage, deserve bail.
Meghraj Saini
Karan Yadav
Vivek Yadav
State of Rajasthan
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
