SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1106 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Mukesh Yadav’ is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated09.08.2024 bearing FIR No. 0024 of 2024 P.S. Cyber Crime P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was lodged by one Pankaj Kumar Shah against some unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 r/w/ Section 66-D of the I.T. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and there is no transaction in his account and merely on the basis of the old mobile phone used by the present applicant the applicant was implicated. He submits that the applicant have no nexus with the alleged crime. Apart from this, he submits that there is no recovery of any electronic device and the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.08.2024. 5. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant fairly informed to this court that there is one more case relating to cyber crime registered against the applicant in the State of Haryana. 6. On the other side, Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Additional Advocate General seriously oppose the bail application by submitting that the alleged offence is nothing but an organized crime and the huge amount was also credited in the accounts of the present applicant and the applicant is also a habitual offender since one case relating to the same offence is registered in the State of Haryana, therefore, the applicant does not deserve for bail. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations, which appears to be an organized crime, this court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 25.06.2025 PR