[2026:RJ-JP:13028] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2197/2026 Ankur S/o Shri Bhupendra Tiwari, R/o Pakdiyar Purab Penti Prakriyar Purab Patti, Khushi Nagar, Sevrahi Uttar Pradesh. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Galav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/03/2026 1. The instant anticipatory bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with the FIR No.14/2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Police Station(Kota City), District Kota City for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 66-D of the IT Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever and the alleged offence has been committed by the co-accused persons with whom the complainant has settled the dispute and on the basis of the same, the co-accused persons namely Rishi @ Golu & Neeraj have been granted indulgence of regular bail under Section 483 Cr.P.C. Hence, under these circumstances, indulgence of anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the co- [2026:RJ-JP:13028] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2197/2026] accused committed the offence of cyber fraud and secured huge amount running in crores of rupees and the same was transferred in the bank account of the petitioner. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence is made out, hence, he is not entitled to get the benefit of the anticipatory bail and the bail application is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5 Considering the arguments put forward by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and looking to the gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of the anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this criminal misc. bail application stands rejected. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Shivam-Puneet/41