2026:UHC:3923 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS ABA No. 174 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Deepak Petshali, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. with Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The applicant ‘Jagjot Singh’ S/o Amrik Singh, who is originally belong to Jharkhand, praying for anticipatory bail in reference to First Information Report dated 28.10.2024 bearing FIR No. 61 of 2024 P.S. Rudraprayag, District Rudraprayag, which was lodged against the unknown person for the offence punishable under section 318(4) of BNS, 2023. 4. It is argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, which is evident from the fact that he is not named in the FIR, and merely on the basis of the statement of the co- accused, who was taken into custody the applicant has been implicated. 5. In paragraph 14 it is specifically contended that the applicant have no criminal history and now ready to cooperate with the investigation. 6. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, on instructions, apprise to this court that the allegations relates to cyber fraud and the applicant have a criminal history relating to the same nature of offence and at one point of time he was also sent to Tihar Jail regarding FIR No. 167 of 2020. He submits that the applicant has suppressed about his criminal antecedents by saying that he has no criminal history, which is false statement on an affidavit. He also submits that non bailable warrant has already been issued and not only this even section 84 of BNS, 2023 proceeding has also been initiated, therefore, the applicant does not deserve for anticipatory bail. 7. After hearing the argument of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the applicant suppressed about 2026:UHC:3923 his criminal antecedents and furthermore non bailable warrant is already issued against him and even section 84 of BNS proceeding has also been initiated and he is a habitual offender relating to cyber fraud, therefore, this court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 20.05.2026 PR