[2025:RJ-JP:8191] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1119/2025 Ashok Kumar Nitad S/o Banshidhar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Near Karnal Farm, Hasteda, Police Station Govindgarh, Chomu Jaipur Presently At C-40 C2 Sn Residency Kalwar Road, Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur. (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anish Bhadala For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 24/02/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.169/2024 registered at Police Station Jaipur Airport, District Jaipur City (East) for the offence(s) under Sections 318(2), 319(2) and 316(2) of BNS and Section 66D of IT Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the main allegation of creating WhatsApp group and deceiving the complainant Nidhi Jain is against the other co-accused, and the accused-petitioner did not use the said mobile numbers. It is also contended that the accused-petitioner operates an investment firm and the said amount of [2025:RJ-JP:8191] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1119/2025] Rs.18,50,000/- transferred to accused-petitioner's account and the accused-petitioner immediately transferred the said amount on the instruction of his clients in the other accounts. It is also contended that the offence under Sections 319(2) and 316(2) of BNS are bailable one. The offence under Section 66D of IT Act is not made out against the accused-petitioner as the accused- petitioner did not created any link or WhatsApp group. The offence under Section 316(2) of BNS is also not made out against the accused-petitioner. It is also contended that the other co-accused Saleem Ahemad and Ghanshyam Singh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and they received huge amount. The accused-petitioner is in custody since long and charge-sheet has already been produced before the concerned Court, and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, on the ground of parity, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. The police after thorough investigation has charge-sheeted the accused-petitioner along with the other co-accused Rubeen Dayal, Chandra Prakash Agrawal, Ghanshyam Singh and Saleem Ahemad under Sections 318(2), 319(2) and 316(2) of BNS and Section 66D of IT Act. The perusal of the charge-sheet and the statement of complainant Nidhi Jain rendered under Section 180 of BNSS clearly shows that the amount of Rs.18,50,000/- was transferred from the account of complainant Nidhi Jain to accused- [2025:RJ-JP:8191] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1119/2025] petitioner's account. The statement of the accused-petitioner's account also shows that the accused-petitioner regularly received amount from the account of complainant Nidhi Jain. The charge- sheet also reveals that the accused-petitioner thereafter transferred the amount in the account of the other co-accused Chandra Prakash Agrawal, Saleem Ahemad etc. The bail application of Chandra Prakash Agrawal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024. The other co-accused Ghanshyam Singh and Saleem Ahemad were enlarged on bail on the grounds that they received Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,85,000/- in their account and the said amount was transferred from the account of petitioner Grow Wealth Management Pvt. Ltd., Chomu. The accused-petitioner received the entire amount of Rs.18,50,000/- in his account from the complainant's account. It is apparent that the accused-petitioner is the main beneficiary and directly received amount from the complainant's account, therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to enlarged the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Hence, the bail application of the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/34