[2025:RJ-JP:4104] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11774/2024 Vivek Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ramdhari Yadav, R/o A-27/1, Gali No. 9 Durga Park, Sagarpur Palam, South Delhi- 110045 ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hament Singh for Mr. R.D. Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 29/01/2025 1. The instant pre-arrest bail application has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of his arrest in connection with FIR No.09/2023 registered at Police Station Cyber Police Station SOG, District SOG for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 & 120B of IPC & Sections 66(c) & 66(d) of IT Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that petitioner never created any mobile link or instagram link to induce the complainant to transfer amount in his account. He submits that it appears from the investigation report that petitioner himself is victim of cyber crime and he was not aware of the fact that some amount has been deposited in his account maintained in Yes Bank. It is submitted that petitioner himself [2025:RJ-JP:4104] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-11774/2024] submitted a complaint when he received information from the Bank that some suspicious transactions have been made in his account. In pursuance of order dated 04.11.2024, petitioner has already joined the investigation. Counsel further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this matter. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He submits that Rs.79,000/- was transferred from the account of complainant to petitioner’s account. He submits that in respect of this account, 126 complaints have been registered against the petitioner in different states. Apart of this, several other cases, have also been registered against the petitioner & in one case, he was arrested in Mumbai & remained in custody for about 50 days. He thus prays that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this matter. 4. Heard. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the large number of other complaints registered in respect of the account maintained by the petitioner & also considering the manner in which offence alleged to have been committed, I am not inclined to extend the indulgence of anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /253