1 13 ABA 807.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 807/2026 ( Kanishk Gautam Barnwal Vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. N. B. Rathod, Advocate for applicant. Ms. S. S. Dhote, APP for non-applicant /State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 09/09/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 305/2026 registered with Police Station Tahsil, Dist. Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 316(5), 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant Rohit Ganesh Jagare was induced by one Polab Partha Sarkar to transfer money on the representation that USDT (cryptocurrency) would be supplied to him at a comparatively lower rate. Acting upon such representation, during the course of October 2025 to May, 2026, the 2 13 ABA 807.26 informant has transferred an aggregate amount of approximately Rs.17,32,612/- into the bank account of accused person as directed by the accused, namely Polab Partha Sarkar. It is alleged that neither the promised cryptocurrency was supplied nor the amount was returned to the informant, resulting in registration of the present crime. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a student and is 22 years of age. The applicant is a friend of the main accusednamely Polab Sarkar, who is the resident of Asan Sol, Dist. Bhardhama, West Bengal. The accused has requested the applicant to deposit the amount which was received by the applicant in his account. The learned counsel further submits that the applicant is an innocent person and he has no role in the alleged online fraud. He further submits that from the contents of the FIR, it appears that the main accused i.e. Polab Sarkar is selling the cryptocurrency for lesser amount. Therefore, he used to collect the amounts from different accounts and one of the account was used by the applicant who has received Rs. 1,10,000/- from the account of the informant. When it was noticed that it is a 3 13 ABA 807.26 fraud applicant returned the same demand draft to the informant, therefore he submits that the applicant is not an accused, whereas it is Polab Sarkar who is the main accused who has utilized the account of the applicant for fraudulent transaction. Being the companion of Polab Sarkar, the applicant in good faith has permitted Polab Sarkar to utilize his account. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that the informant is from Nagpur, whereas the applicant and the main accused person are from West Bemgal. She submits that from the FIR itself, it could be gathered that, Polab Sarkar has asked the informant to deposit the amount in different accounts of different persons. Further, it appears that in total the amount which was deposited by the informant is nearly Rs.17,32,612/- Out of which, it could be gathered from the contents of the FIR that the amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- was deposited by the informant in the bank account of the applicant. She submits that this cannot be considered as a regular transaction. In fact, all the accused persons in collusion with each other has duped the persons from the entire country under the garb of giving cryptocurrency for 4 13 ABA 807.26 lesser amount. Under such circumstances, she submits that the custodial interrogation would be necessary. 6. Upon consideration of rival submissions, it appears that on several occasions, the informant was asked to deposit the amount in various accounts. The total amount deposited appears to be nearly Rs.17,32,612/-. Out of Rs. 17,32,612/-, Rs.1,10,000/- was credited in the account of the applicant. Therefore, it is not only a case of amount credited in the account the applicant, however, it is systematic and a well planned offence. All the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention appears to have been duping the persons under the garb of selling the cryptocurrency for lesser amount. All the said transactions are through online process. It is further to be noted that though the investigating officer has issued notice under section 35(3) of the BNSS. From the record, it appears that the applicant has failed to appear before the investigating officer. Under such circumstances, the applicant is not a law-abiding citizen. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that a thorough investigation is necessary to unearth the complete facts and circumstances of the case. It is further to be noted that these type of offences 5 13 ABA 807.26 are increasing day by day and general people are falling prey to such false promises. In the opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, hence the application is rejected. 7. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 10/09/2026 16:45:04