Allowed

Dinesh Kumar Meena Alias Dinu S/O Shri Purshottam Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Dec 2025CRLMB/13919/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail applications by accused in a cyber-extortion case allowed. Court noted previous dismissal with liberty, long trial pendency, lack of direct evidence, and magistrate-triable offences. Bail granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicants on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- each and two solvent attested sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each.

Dinesh Kumar Meena Alias Dinu S/O Shri Purshottam… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:48613]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

(1) S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 13918/2025

¶4

Gograj Meghvanshi @ David S/o Shri Hanuman, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Balaji Ki Bagchi, Savatsar, Madanganj, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Kishanganj, Ajmer (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶5

----Accused/Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

(2) S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 13919/2025

¶11

Dinesh Kumar Meena @ Dinu S/o Shri Purshottam Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Parasia Madanganj, Police Station Madanganj Kishangarh, Ajmer (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶12

----Accused/Applicant

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

(3) S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 13920/2025

¶17

Sanjay Meena @ Sanju S/o Shri Omprakash Meena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Pani Ki Tanki Ke Pari, Apar Paka Chukeena Chamtikheda, Police Station Kotwali, Chittorgarh, (Rajasthan). (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶18

----Accused/Applicant

¶19

Versus

¶20

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶21

----Respondent

¶22

For Applicants	: Mr.	Girish Khandelwal,Adv.
For Respondent	: Mr.	Naresh Gupta,PP

(2 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:48613]

[CRLMB-13918/2025]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶27

Order

¶28

01/12/2025

¶29

As these second bail applications have been filed pertaining to the same FIR, they are being heard and decided by the instant common order.

¶30

The first bail applications filed on behalf of the accusedapplicants have been dismissed by this Court vide common order dated 28.05.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Applications No.16237/2024 and other connected matters, with the liberty to the accused-applicants to file afresh, after recording of the statements of the complainant and the Investigating Officer.

¶31

The present second bail applications have been filed by the accused-applicants under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 in the matter arising out of FIR No.392/2024, registered at Police Station Special Crime and Cyber Crime Police Station, District Deputy Commissioner, Police Crime Commissionerate Jaipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 316(2), 61(2) (b) and 308(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 66-C and 66-D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2008').

¶32

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants submits that the accused-applicants have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel also submits that as per the impugned FIR, the charges levelled against the accused-applicants are triable by Judicial Magistrate.

(3 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:48613]

[CRLMB-13918/2025]

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants argues that the accused-applicants were arrested on 03.12.2024 and since then, they are in judicial custody. Learned counsel further argues that the statements of the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer have already been recorded and it is also available on record that the phone call for committing extortion against the complainant by way of 'digital arrest', was not made by any of the accused-applicants. Learned counsel submits that the accused-applicants have been made accused in this matter on the basis of allegation raised against the accused-applicants that the amount of Rs.90,00,000/- has been extorted from the complainant by his 'digital arrest' and subsequently, Rs.3,00,000/each has been obtained in the bank accounts of the accusedapplicants namely-Gograj Meghvanshi and Dinesh Kumar Meena, however, there is no evidence on record to prove the same.

¶37

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants contends that the charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take long time to conclude, therefore, the accused-applicants be granted benefit of bail.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposes these second bail applications.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

¶40

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case; the period of custody of the accused-applicants; the fact that charges levelled against the accused-applicants are triable by Judicial Magistrate; that charge-sheet has been filed and the trial

(4 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:48613]

[CRLMB-13918/2025]

will take long time to conclude, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it proper to allow these second bail applications filed on behalf of the accused-applicants.

¶45

Consequently, these second bail applications filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 are allowed. It is ordered that accused-applicants namely (1) Gograj Meghvanshi @ David S/o Shri Hanuman, (2) Dinesh Kumar Meena @ Dinu S/o Shri Purshottam Meena & (3) Sanjay Meena @ Sanju S/o Shri Omprakash Meena, arrested in connection with FIR No.392/2024, registered at Police Station Special Crime and Cyber Crime Police Station, District Deputy Commissioner Police Crime Commissionerate Jaipur, shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each and two solvent attested sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. Accused-applicants shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶46

The accused-applicants are also directed to mark their presence in the third week of every month before the concerned Police Station, till conclusion of trial. SHO of the concerned Police Station shall send the presence report of the accused-applicants to the concerned trial Court every month. In case of any breach of the above condition, learned counsel for the State shall be free to move an application against the accused-applicants for cancellation of bail before the concerned Judicial Magistrate.

[2025:RJ-JP:48613]

[CRLMB-13918/2025]

(5 of 5)