Allowed

Rajneesh Kumar S/O Sh. Prakash Veer, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 May 2026CRLMB/4089/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application for an accused charged with offences under BNS and the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act. The court noted the charge-sheet attributes the main cheating and deceptive advertising to a co-accused, while the petitioner was merely instructed to create websites.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Rajneesh Kumar S/O Sh. Prakash Veer, Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:20459]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4089/2026

¶4

Rajneesh Kumar S/o Sh. Prakash Veer, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Gram Naseerpur, Afzalpur, Roorkee, Zila-Haridwar, At Present Resident Of 2Nd Floor, Ahinsa Apartment, New Aadarsh Nagar, Roorkee Zila Haridwar. (At Present Confined In Jaipur Central Jail, Ghat Gate, Jaipur Since 10.01.2026)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶8

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Manish Kinha Mr. Keshav Tanwar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vivek Chaudhary,PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶10

Order

¶11

14/05/2026

¶12

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 45/2025 registered at Special Police Station S.O.G. District ATS & SOG for the offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS and Section 3/21 of The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

¶13

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that the main allegation of cheating and launching the websites, namely (www.harvestusdt.com), (harvestaitechnology.com), and (harvstchain.io), is against the co-

[2026:RJ-JP:20459]

[CRLMB-4089/2026]

(2 of 4)

accused, Bansilal @ Prince. It is further contended that the petitioner merely created the said websites on the instructions of Bansilal @ Prince and was not a beneficiary of the websites so created. It is also submitted that the bail application of Bansilal @ Prince was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026, whereas the other co-accused persons, namely Mamta and Dinesh Bagari, who were alleged to be associates, have already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Benches of this Court. It is further contended that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the trial Court. Even in the charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer has specifically concluded that the petitioner only created the websites and that Bansilal@ Prince had paid the petitioner for the same. Thus, the role attributed to the petitioner is confined solely to creating the websites as per the instructions of coaccused Bansilal @ Prince. It is also contended that the petitioner was neither a beneficiary of the alleged transactions nor was any amount transferred to the petitioner’s account, therefore the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused Bansilal @ Prince, created the websites with the intention to deceive persons and induce them to invest in cryptocurrency schemes. It is further contended that the bail application of co-accused Bansilal @ Prince has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026. It is also submitted that the investigation has revealed that an amount of approximately Rs. 15 crore was collected from investors. Further, an amount of Rs. 4,44,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Forty-Four

[2026:RJ-JP:20459]

[CRLMB-4089/2026]

(3 of 4)

Thousand only) was procured by co-accused Bansilal @ Prince by circulating advertisements on social media and luring investors with promises of vehicles such as Scorpio and Fortuner in return for their investments, therefore, considering the above facts, the bail application of the accused-petitioner deserves dismissal.

¶23

Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. The main allegation of deceiving the general public by issuing advertisements on social media, collecting an amount of approximately Rs. 4,44,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Forty-Four Thousand only), and luring investors with promises of Fortuner and Scorpio vehicles in lieu of their investments is against the coaccused, Bansilal @ Prince. In the charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer has specifically concluded that the petitioner merely created the websites on the instructions of co-accused Bansilal @ Prince and received payment from him for the said work. Therefore, the role attributed to the petitioner appears to be limited to the creation of the websites at the instance of the coaccused, therefore without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accusedpetitioner on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Rajneesh Kumar S/o Sh. Prakash Veer, in connection with FIR No. 45/2025 registered at Special Police Station S.O.G. District ATS & SOG shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his

[2026:RJ-JP:20459]

[CRLMB-4089/2026]

(4 of 4)

appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶29

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶30

ashu /34

Rajneesh Kumar S/O Sh. Prakash Veer, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh Kumar S/O Sh. Prakash Veer, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailashchand Gurjar Son of Shri Omprakash Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Khandelwal S/O Shri Radheyshyam Khandelwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Gyarsilal Saini S/O Chauthmal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Akshayraj Singh S/O Shri Chota Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sahil S/O Bajrang Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhaghirath S/O Rudaram Vs State of Rajasthan