No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1272 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Ms. Shweta Jain, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. The applicant – Avnish Kumar Jaiswal, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/ Case Crime No. 21 of 2025, under Section 318(4), 61(2) and 238 of BNS and 66D of the Information Technology Act, (Amendment Act), 2008, registered at P.S.- Cyber Crime, District Dehradun, has sought his release on bail. 5. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the complainant - Tejpal Singh Rawat on 06.05.2025 against some unknown person, whereby, it was alleged that the complainant, who is Manager of Darrameks Hotels and Developers Pvt. Ltd. received a wtsapp message from one Arjun Mehra, who impersonated himself to be the Managing Director of the Darrameks Hotels and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and so called Arjun Mehra first asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.95 Crores in the account of the client Shyam Trading Company (Indusind Bank, Kolkata) and then again, he asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.25 Crores. Thus, the total of Rs. 3.20 Crores were fraudulently made to be deposited from the account of Darrameks Hotels and Developers Pvt. Ltd. to the account of Shyam Trading Company (Indusind Bank, Kolkata, A/ c no. 201032701581). 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that later on, it was found that there was no such company with the name of Shyam Trading Company and the person, who impersonated himself as Arjun Mehra was not Arjun Mehra himself. After investigation, the name of the applicant also came into picture and in all these transactions, the I.P. address used in the above transactions was from the broadband connection of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that applicant is innocent and he owns a mobile repairing shop and, as such, was having a broadband connection in his name, services of which, were being provided free of cost to the customers; not even a single penny has been credited to the account of the applicant; other than the evidence of broadband connection pertaining to the applicant was obtained, no other incriminating evidence could be found against the applicant; the applicant is not named in the FIR and chargesheet has already been filed in the case. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that the offence alleged is of a grave and heinous nature. 9. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ( Alok Mah r a J.) 27.11.2025 Ujjwal