[2025:RJ-JP:35808] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6612/2025 1. Prakash S/o Shri Rathinam, R/o 472, Krishnar Koil Street Mottur, Police Station Pallipattu, District Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu. (Presently Confining In Central Jail, Jaipur). 2. Ajith S/o Shri Rathinam, R/o 472, Krishnar Koii Street Mottur, Police Station Pallipattu, District Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu. (Presently Confining In Central Jail, Jaipur). 3. Tamilasaran Kuppan S/o Shri Kuppan, R/o 395, Mottoor Street Kumarajapet Village, Post Pallipat Taluk, Police Station Pallipattu, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu. (Presently Confining In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Kumar Mr. Vikash Meena For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Shrawan Kumar, P.S. Cyber, Jaipur present in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 28/08/2025 1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicants-accused Prakash S/o Shri Rathinam, Ajith S/o Shri Rathinam and Tamilasaran Kuppan S/o Shri Kuppan seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.330/2024 dated 03.09.2024 registered at P.S.Cyber Crime District - Commissionerate Jaipur, for the offence under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 316(2), 308(2), 61(2)(b) of BNS and 66C and 66D of IT Act. [2025:RJ-JP:35808] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6612/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against them is complete and they are no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that all three petitioners are resident of Tamil Nadu and they are not conversant in Hindi and submitted that material on record indicated that a joint account is operated by Arvindam and Prakash and not with Ajeet and Kupan. He further submitted that Ajeet and Kupan are not connected with the crime for which they are being taken in custody by police. He further submitted that for a identical type of offence, ED has also arrested wherein bail has been granted by the trial court. He further submitted that without proper evidence and without considering role and involvement of present petitioners, these petitioners were arrayed as an accused. He further referred evidence collected by police and submitted that the money has not been transferred to the accounts of Ajeet and Tamilasaran and they are not beneficiary. He further submitted that majority of the amount is received by Arvindam and not by Prakash. He further submitted that in case under the Prevension of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), Tamilasaran, Prakash and Ajeet were granted bail by learned [2025:RJ-JP:35808] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6612/2025] Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 28.02.2005 and he placed reliance upon the order passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. Also considered submissions of Mr. Sharwan Kumar, IO, who is present in person. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 6. On the basis of complaint dated 03.09.2024 lodged by complainant Vipul Chaturvedi about the cyber crime and his digital arrest and further transfer of ₹2,16,50,000/- from his account. The matter is registered and investigated. During investigation, police has collected details on basis of transactions, found involvement of Arvindam, Prakash, Ajeet, Tamilasaran and Kupan and further kept pending against others under Section 193(9) of BNSS. The material on record submitted by learned counsel for petitioners indicated that all three petitioners were granted bail by learned City Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 28.02.2025 in PMLA case. A perusal of material available on record indicated involvement of present petitioners. The material on record indicated that by using WhatsApp and video calls posing as Law Enforcement Officers, the accused have impersonated and made false accusation against the victim and created psychological pressure after digital arrest of complainant, who is retired person and a senior citizen and [2025:RJ-JP:35808] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6612/2025] more than ₹2.16 crore were transferred from his bank accounts and same is verified by IO, who is present in person. The police has filed charge-sheet. The grant of bail in PMLA is not a ground to release petitioners on bail in the instant case. 7. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicants is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicants accused on bail. 8. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicants accused at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Prakash S/o Shri Rathinam, Ajith S/o Shri Rathinam and Tamilasaran Kuppan S/o Shri Kuppan are hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /50