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. 151 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant – Keshav Goyal, son of late Krishan Mohan Goyal, is praying for anticipatory bail in reference to FIR dated 14.06.2024 bearing FIR No. 38 of 2024, Police Station – Cyber PS, District – Dehradun which was lodged against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 420, 120B IPC read with Section 66D of the IT Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and when he got the information that in his account more than Rs. 18,00,000/- has been credited, he immediately reported the matter to the police. He further submits that present applicant is in judicial custody in relation to another Case Crime No. 88 of 2024 and Case Crime No. 89 of 2024 and in these cases, applicant has already been enlarged on bail. Copy of the bail order passed by Allahabad High Court is enclosed with this anticipatory bail application at page 20 and 23. In paragraph 7 of the anticipatory bail application, applicant has disclosed about two other criminal cases registered against present applicant in State of Rajasthan bearing FIR No. 31 of 2024 and FIR No. 2330 of 2025 with the same set of allegations. He further submits that present applicant is not named in the FIR but there is an apprehension of arrest. 5. Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder submits that though applicant is already on bail in relations to two cases registered in State of U.P. but as on date, applicant is in jail, therefore, there is no apprehension of arrest. 6. I found force in the submission of learned State Counsel. 7. Taking into consideration that applicant is indulged in similar nature of cases and two cases are registered in State of U.P. and two cases are registered in State of Rajasthan and applicant is languishing in jail, therefore, there is no question of an apprehension of arrest, therefore, this Court is of the view that applicant does not deserve for anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 12.05.2026 SKS