Mangal Sarsiya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:16642)
- Neutral2025:RJ-JD:2617
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an accused person is charged with offences including digital fraud and extortion, and the investigation has been completed with the challan filed, bail may be granted under Section 483 BNSS where the material on record does not establish the accused's direct involvement in the primary criminal conspiracy (here, the digital impersonation and extortion demand), but rather shows only indirect participation through provision of bank accounts operated by co-accused persons, particularly where the accused received only commission payments and there is nothing on record linking them to the instigation or planning of the core offence.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2160/2025 Sumit S/o Parkash, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Naya Basera Kotra , Sultanabad , P.s. Kamlanagar , Dist Bhopal , Mp (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Sri Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 625/2025 Mangal Sarsiya S/o Shri Mukesh Sarsiya, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ice Biti Annasagar, P.s. Govindpura, Dist Bhopal,mp (At Present Lodged At Central Jail Sri Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitender Singh Bhaleria
Mr. Praveen Karwa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
01/04/2025 These applications for bail under Section 483 BNSS have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.09/2024 registered at Cyber Police Station, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 308(6) and 61(2) of BNS; and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act.
(Downloaded on 01/04/2025 at 09:44:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16642] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2160/2025]
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the prosecution, on 15.07.2024, the complainant- Jay Bhagwan was digitally arrested whereupon accused persons extorted a sum of Rs.66,70,000/-. The aforementioned amount was transferred by the complainant in various accounts as per the instructions of the accused persons.
Learned counsel submitted that petitioners are innocent persons. They are not the main accused in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that the bank accounts which were opened in their name were being operated by co-accused persons namely Arun and Ajay.
The petitioners were being paid some commission in exchange of the transactions done by above named persons in their bank accounts.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners conspired to "digitally arrest" the complainant by wrongly impostering as Police Officer or have ever asked him to deposit different amounts in different bank accounts.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody; the investigation against the petitioners has already been completed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the bank accounts in which the amount was allegedly transferred by the complainant were not being used by the petitioners and the same were being operated by the co-accused persons namely Arun and Ajay. He was also not in a position to
(Downloaded on 01/04/2025 at 09:44:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16642] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2160/2025] refute the fact that there is nothing on record to indicate that accused conspired to digitally arrest the complainant by wrongly posing as Police Officers or the money was transferred in different
bank accounts at their instance.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.
Consequently, these bail applications under Section 483 BNSSare allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners (1)
Sumit S/o Parkash and (2) Mangal Sarsiya S/o Shri Mukesh Sarsiya arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.09/2024 registered at Cyber Police Station, District Sri Ganganagar shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for their appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
41-42 divya/-
(Downloaded on 01/04/2025 at 09:44:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free