― Advertisement ―

HomeMangilal Alias Pappu vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:19675) on 27 April, 2026

Mangilal Alias Pappu vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:19675) on 27 April, 2026

ADVERTISEMENT

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Mangilal Alias Pappu vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:19675) on 27 April, 2026

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:19675]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       AT JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1563/2026
Mangilal Alias Pappu S/o Mukaram Vishnoi, aged about 36 years,
Resident of Sankad, Police Station Sanchore, District Jalore,
Rajasthan.
                        (Presently Lodged In Distt. Jail, Rajsamand)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Zeeshan Ali.
                                Mr. Aslam Khan.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sameer Pareek, PP.


               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order
27/04/2026

1. The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner

SPONSORED

under Section 483 BNSS who has been arrested in connection with

the FIR No.02/2023 dated 30.03.2023 registered at the Police

Station Cyber (Rajsamand), District Rajsamand, for the offences

under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 & 120B of IPC and Sections 66-C

and 66-D of the Information Technology Act.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 30.03.2023,

complainant Madan Singh lodged a written report with the In-charge,

Cyber Police Station, Rajsamand, stating therein that he received

summon dated 08.03.2023 from ITO Ward-1, Rajsamand, under

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging ₹48,39,360/- tax

demand on ₹16,13,12,000/- scrap-sale income for FY 2018-19 by M/

s Pioneer Industries (Proprietor: Shri Madan Singh, Mangalore

address), registered fraudulently in his name. Upon inquiry, he

learned that some unknown persons had opened a fake Bank of

(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 03:56:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 08:34:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19675] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1563/2026]

Baroda account (No.5250100011145, Mangalore) using his PAN

without consent, despite his sole legitimate Account

No.30260100026060, Bhim Branch; and misused his details via

computer fraud to alter his mobile/address and e-file false ITRs for

FY 2017-18/2018-19 using Aadhaar OTP. Earlier, in 2020, a similar

Mangalore notice was replied to by post. These acts tampering with

documents, forging company registration, and conducting crores in

fictitious transactions, thereby cheated him with dishonest intent,

causing wrongful loss and tax liability; appropriate action is sought

against the culprits while safeguarding him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in the present case and bears no

connection whatsoever with the alleged offences. He submits that

the petitioner has never associated with the alleged fake company,

neither misused the complainant’s PAN card or any other documents

nor used them for any wrongful purpose, and has not carried out any

transactions or received any amount through the alleged account.

Further, since the petitioner had no contact or interaction with the

complainant, the question of opening any fake company or account

on the basis of the complainant’s documents does not arise. The

petitioner has been in custody since 07.01.2026 and the

investigation is complete, with no further recovery to be effected

from him. He further submits that charge sheet reveals the petitioner

was found in possession of four SIM cards, including Mobile

No.8050193495 used to open the account in the name of M/s

Pioneer Industries, yet the recovery memo confirms that this SIM

was not recovered from the petitioner. Lastly, learned counsel for the

(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 03:56:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 08:34:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19675] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1563/2026]

petitioner argued that the offences are triable by the court of

Magistrate and, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail

application, however, is not in a position to refute the fact that the

petitioner has not been named in the FIR and that the petitioner has

no previous criminal antecedents of similar nature. He further admits

that charge sheet has been filed. Learned Public Prosecutor also does

not refute the fact that the offences, alleged, are triable by the court

of Magistrate.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced at Bar by learned

counsel for the parties and having regard to the entirety of facts and

circumstances of the case as available on record; and looking to the

fact that trial may take a long time to conclude and, without

expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court

deems it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

5. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that

the accused petitioner Mangilal Alias Pappu S/o Mukaram

Vishnoi arrested in connection with FIR No.02/2023 dated

30.03.2023 registered at the Police Station Cyber (Rajsamand),

District Rajsamand shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of

Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, with a

stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as

and when called upon to do so.

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
29-DeeptaArora/-

(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 03:56:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 08:34:32 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)



Source link