[2026:RJ-JP:6442]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No.

2569/2026 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 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

11/02/2026

1. The first bail application of the petitioner along with co- accused persons namely Karan Yadav and Vivek Yadav was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 granting liberty to all of them to revive their prayer for bail after completion of investigation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now charge-sheet has been submitted and there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged incident. Counsel submits that as per the conclusion of investigation, the petitioner opened one account in UCO bank on 03.09.2025 and on the next date i.e. on 04.09.2025, he was arrested along with co-accused persons. Counsel submits that as per the case of prosecution, there were three cyber complaints registered against the mobile sim number of the petitioner, which are the same as the alleged cyber crimes registered against the co-accused namely Karan Yadav. Lastly, he argued that the case of the petitioner is different from the co-accused persons namely Karan Yadav and Vivek Yadav and there is no private complaint against him. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a young boy aged 19 years and he does not have any antecedents and now the investigation is complete and trial will take its own time to conclude, therefore, indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that thorough investigation has been done by the Investigating Officer, which indicates that the petitioner was involved in the cyber crime along with co-accused persons namely Vivek Yadav, Karan Yadav and the main accused Jasraj Meena. Counsel submits that the petitioner along with co- accused persons enticed people under the pretext of extra income by creating a group on Telegram to collect money from them. Counsel submits that the mobile chats between the accused persons indicate that the petitioner was involved in the aforesaid incident. Counsel submits that from the mobile number of co-accused Jasraj Meena a screenshot was also sent to the petitioner, which indicates his active role in the aforesaid incident. Lastly he argued that the second bail applications of the co-accused persons namely Vivek Yadav and Karan Yadav, bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No.16064/2025 and 15712/2025, have been rejected by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2026. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail and his second bail application is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the involvement of the petitioner was found along with the co-accused persons namely Vivek Yadav and Karan Yadav and also the main accused Jasraj Meena. The petitioner was in contact with them and a telegram account was created by the accused persons for the purpose of enticing people under the pretext of extra income and on the basis of aforesaid, the petitioner was arrested and charge-sheeted along with co-accused persons before the competent Court of law.

6. This Court vide order dated 31.01.2026 has passed a detailed order in two bail applications submitted by the co- accused persons namely Vivek Yadav and Karan Yadav and it has been observed by this Court in para Nos.6 to 12, which reads as under:

“6. Investigation reveals that 9 cyber complaints were receive