2025:UHC:6554 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/784/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Siddharath Bisht, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State. 3. Present applicants namely “Sandeep Singh and Harjinder Singh”, are praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 21.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 0005 of 2025, Police Station – Cyber Crime, District – Udham Singh Nagar, wherein present applicants have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 351 (3), 352, 61 (2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 66 (C) of the IT Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that present applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated, which is evident from the allegation itself since on the request of the complainant, these two applicants had facilitated the complainant to open the bank account and somehow huge money credited in his account. He further submits that both the applicants have no concern with regard to the money about 3 crore credited in the account of complainant. He further submits that applicants are languishing in jail since 15.04.2025 and no money was recovered from the applicants and they have no criminal history. He further submits that in the connected FIR No. 11 of 2025, both the applicants have been bailed out. 5. On the other side, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that investigation is still going on and the crime which has been alleged relating to a cyber crime, which is a well organized crime. He further submits that several electronic devices were recovered from the applicants. He further submits that it cannot be ruled out that several other persons from different States are also involved in this organized crime and since the 2025:UHC:6554 investigation is still going, therefore, at this juncture, applicants may not be enlarged on bail. 6. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that allegations relates to cyber crime and furthermore, the investigation is still going on, therefore, this Court is of the view that applicants don’t deserve for bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 24.07.2025. SKS