Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sameer Jain, J.
Naveen Temani – Petitioner
versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No. 3107/2026
Decided on 1.4.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Jindal, Mr. Hemant Vijay
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Aman Kumar, AAAG, Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP, Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat,PP, Ms. Neha Goyal, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sharma, DGP, Rajasthan (through VC), Mr. Shantanu Singh, DIG, Cyber Crime, Mr. Sumit Mehrada, SP, Cyber Crime, Mr. Aatish Jain with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Bairwa, Ms. Urmila Maharshi, complainant with Mr. Girish Sharma– present in person
IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in cases of digital arrest.
Headnote:
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 308(6), 318(4), 319(2), 111(4) and 204 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 482] – Anticipatory Bail Application – Present matter pertains to a case of ‘digital arrest’, wherein an 83 years old lady has allegedly been defrauded by applicant – Complainant suffered severe mental trauma and was hospitalized for a considerable period following the incident – Vulnerability of victim, coupled with magnitude of alleged offence, lends serious weight to prosecution’s case – Involvement of multiple accused persons, use of layered financial transactions, and transnational dimension of offence clearly demonstrate a well-organized and deliberated criminal operation – Requirement of custodial interrogation, recovery of electronic devices such as mobile phones, laptops, and SIM cards, and unearthing larger conspiracy cannot be ruled out – Grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances would seriously impede course of investigation – Bail declined – Trial Court directed to consider any application that may be preferred by complainant for release of seized amount with due sensitivity and promptitude. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18)
Result: Anticipatory Bail Application dismissed.
ORDER
Reportable:
The present bail application has been filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with FIR No.12/2024, registered at Police Station Cyber Police Station (ATS & SOG), District ATS & SOG for the offence(s) under Sections 308(6), 318(4), 319(2), 111(4) & 204 of BNS.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, had fairly conceded that the first anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant, being S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9766/2025 (Naveen Temani vs. State of Rajasthan), came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2025.
3. It was then submitted that S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2370/2025, instituted by the present applicant seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, was dismissed on 30.04.2025. It was also pointed out that the said order was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 53217/2025, which too came to be dismissed on 15.10.2025.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present application for anticipatory bail has been filed on account of changed circumstances, as a compromise has been arrived at between the applicant and the complainant in respect of a commercial dispute inter-se them, and considering the limited nature of the dispute, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. It was further submitted that the applicant is a bona fide individual, presently residing in Dubai and employed as a Sales Officer. It was apprised to the Court that the applicant was holding certain cryptocurrency as part of his personal savings, and on account of financial necessity, the same was transacted with the co-accused, who paid a certain amount towards its purchase. It was urged that such transaction, in itself, cannot be construed as implicating the applicant in any alleged act of cyber fraud.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan and learned counsel appearing for the complainant, have vehemently opposed the bail application.
6. At the outset, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is left with no liquidity to sustain herself or to bear the expenses of medicines and hospitalization, apart from her pensionary emoluments of Rs. 35,000/- per month, and that the complainant is devoid of any means of subsistence to maintain herself at the fag end of her life, particularly in view of her critical medical condition.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the present case is a classic instance of ‘digital arrest’, wherein an 83 years old lady was fraudulently subjected to such digital coercion and was compelled to transfer her pensionary benefits/savings from her bank account, amounting to Rs. 80 lakhs. It was submitted that on account of the said incident, the complainant suffered severe mental trauma, remained under depression, and was admitted to the hospital for a considerable period of time.
8. It was further submitted that the applicant is the kingpin of the entire operation, who, in connivance with other co-accused, has committed an international cyber-crime and extorted an amount of Rs. 80 lakhs, which was subsequently repatriated to Dubai. It was contended that out of the said amount, the applicant purchased Bitcoin/USDT, as revealed during the course of a detailed investigation. It was submitted that as many as 34 mule accounts, at different layers (layer one and two), were utilized in the commission of the offence, and that 187 complaints have been registered on the relevant portal.
9. It was submitted by the Director General of Police, Cyber Crime, as well as the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime, in an unanimous voice (appearing via video conferencing) that the instant matter pertains to an international cyber-crime involving the use of multiple mule accounts operated by different
