Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2101

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Rakesh Thapliyal, J
Neeraj Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
BA1 No. 1078 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aditya Pratap Singh
For the Respondents: V.S. Pal

The court denied bail based on ongoing investigations and insufficient evidence linking the applicant to the alleged offenses.

Headnote:(A) BNS, 2023 - Sections 318(4), 61(2) - Information Technology Act - Section 66-D - Bail application rejected for offences involving cyber crime; insufficient evidence connecting the applicant to the alleged crimes; the ongoing investigation involves multiple absconding perpetrators and potential impacts on judicial processes. (Paras 4, 8, 14)

(B) Bail - Conditions for granting bail - Applicant's role indistinct amid charges; decision against bail grounded in the need for investigation continuity and avoidance of compromising evidence or judicial processes. (Paras 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The applicant is implicated in a FIR regarding fraud involving digital communication and substantial monetary deposits, although not named initially.

Findings of Court:
The applicant does not deserve bail due to the ongoing investigation.

Issues: The key issues were whether the applicant should be granted bail despite lacking direct evidence against him and the status of the ongoing investigation regarding other accused individuals.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of preserving the integrity of ongoing investigations and the roles played within organized cyber crimes as key considerations affecting the bail decision.

Result: Bail application rejected.

SL. N o .	D a t e	Of f i ce N o t e s, r e p o r t s, o r d e r s o r p r o ce e d i n g s o r d i r e ct i o n s a n d Re g i st r a r ’ s o r d e r w i t h Si g n a t u r e s	COURT’ S OR JUD GE’ S ORD ERS
			1 BA1 No. 1078 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. . Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present applicant–Neeraj Bhatt S/o Sri Govind Prasad Bhatt, resident of District Jaipur, Rajasthan is seeking bail in relation to first information report dated 27.09.2024 bearing FIR No. 0073 of 2024, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Dehradun, which was lodged by one Mahipal Singh against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act . 4. The brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged by the informant at Police Station Cyber Crime Dehradun on 27.09.2024 with the allegation that on 09.09.2024, the informant-Mahipal Singh received a phone call allegedly from Mumbai Police Sub- Inspector who informed the informant that a crime has been committed by using the Adhaar Card and Mobile Number of the informant and disconnected the call. Subsequent thereto, on the same date, the informant also received whatsapp message from Mobile Number 9831042639 on his mobile number i.e. 7983473875 and subsequently received a video call, wherein a person in police uniform was sitting in front and inform the informant that a money laundering has been committed by using his Adhaar Card and Mobile Number up to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs and the

			police will arrest the informant soon and gave instruction to the informant to not travel anywhere, to which he agreed. Next day, he received a whatsapp call from Mobile Number 9831042639 and allegedly one Sub-Inspector Vinod Kumar Chobey provided another mobile number of a police official, namely, Akash. Thereafter, on whatsapp some notices were sent, and, thereafter, the informant deposited a total sum of Rs. 2,27,22,717/- (Rupees Two Crore Twenty Seven Lacs twenty two thousand seven hundred seventeen) to separate accounts on different occasions from 11.09.2024 to 17.09.2024. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the FIR, however, he was arrested on 19.01.2025 from Jaipur near the hostel of the University of Rajasthan, where he is studying in 2nd year of BBA. 6. He submits that the applicant was having his account in AU Small Finance Bank wherein there was an account of one of the co-accused-Aditya Sharma, but since the account of Aditya Sharma was not working and blocked so he asked the applicant for help and informs that some amount will be deposited in his account, on this, the applicant agreed and subsequent there to, in the Month of September, 2024 an amount of Rs. 5.47 Lakhs were credited in the account of the applicant and it was withdrawn by him on the same date and after withdrawing the amount he handed over the entire amount to Aditya Sharma. Apart from this, he submits that there is no such evidence which connects the applicant with the offences as alleged and merely on the basis that the applicant withdrawn a sum of Rs. 5.47 lakhs from his account, the applicant was arrested.

police will arrest the informant soon and gave instruction to the informant to not travel anywhere, to which he agreed. Next day, he received a whatsapp call from Mobile Number 9831042639 and allegedly one Sub-Inspector Vinod Kumar Chobey provided another mobile number of a police official, namely, Akash. Thereafter, on whatsapp some notices were sent, and, thereafter, the informant deposited a total sum of Rs. 2,27,22,717/- (Rupees Two Crore Twenty Seven Lacs twenty two thousand seven hundred seventeen) to separate accounts on different occasions from 11.09.2024 to 17.09.2024. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the FIR, however, he was arrested on 19.01.2025 from Jaipur near the hostel of the University of Rajasthan, where he is studying in 2nd year of BBA. 6. He submits that the applicant was having his account in AU Small Finance Bank wherein there was an account of one of the co-accused-Aditya Sharma, but since the account of Aditya Sharma was not working and blocked so he asked the applicant for help and informs that some amount will be deposited in his account, on this, the applicant agreed and subsequent there to, in the Month of September, 2024 an amount of Rs. 5.47 Lakhs were credited in the account of the applicant and it was withdrawn by him on the same date and after withdrawing the amount he handed over the entire amount to Aditya Sharma. Apart from this, he submits that there is no such evidence which connects the applicant with the offences as alleged and merely on the basis that the applicant withdrawn a sum of Rs. 5.47 lakhs from his account, the applicant was arrested.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2101

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDRakesh Thapliyal, JNeeraj Bhatt – AppellantVersusState – RespondentBA1 No. 1078 of 2025

The court denied bail based on ongoing investigations and insufficient evidence linking the applicant to the alleged offenses.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Rakesh Thapliyal, J
Neeraj Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
BA1 No. 1078 of 2025