Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1963/2025 on 22 May, 2026
2026:UHC:4043
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1 No.1963 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Tushar Prajapati, Advocate for the
applicant.
Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.A. for the State
of Uttarakhand.
2. This first bail application has been moved
by the applicant seeking regular bail in Case
Crime/F.I.R. No.10 of 2023, under Sections
120B, 420, 34 I.P.C. and Section 66D of
Information Technology Act, registered at Police
Station Cyber Crime Rudrapur, District Udham
Singh Nagar.
3. As per the allegations levelled in the
F.I.R., the applicant, along with other co-
accused persons, induced the complainant to
invest money in a cryptocurrency trading
platform/website namely “Bancoin” on the
pretext of earning huge profits. It is alleged that
the complainant, acting upon such inducement,
invested a sum of ₹62,50,000/- through various
transactions made via R.T.G.S. and N.E.F.T. The
said amount was shown reflected in the trading
application of Bancoin. However, when the
complainant attempted to withdraw the
invested amount on 29.05.2023, only a sum of
₹30,000/- was credited into his Punjab National
Bank account. Thereafter, believing the
representations made by the operators of the
said platform, the complainant further invested
₹34,00,000/- on 17.08.2023, ₹4,00,000/- on
27.08.2023, ₹4,50,000/- on 17.09.2023,
₹4,00,000/- on 20.09.2023 and ₹16,00,000/-
on 26.09.2023. It is further alleged that when
the complainant sought withdrawal of
₹1,00,000/- on 25.09.2023, he was informed by
the customer care executives of Bancoin that an
amount of ₹16,00,000/- had allegedly been
credited from an outside source and, therefore,
the same had come under the category of “anti-
money laundering”, requiring the complainant
to deposit an additional sum of ₹16,00,000/- for
clearance purposes. Trusting such
2026:UHC:4043
representation, the complainant deposited the
said amount as well. Subsequently, when the
complainant again applied for withdrawal of
₹20,00,000/-, he was allegedly asked to deposit
another sum of ₹10,00,000/-, whereupon he
realised that he had been cheated and
defrauded.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the applicant has been falsely implicated in
the present case and is innocent. It is
contended that the applicant is languishing in
judicial custody since July, 2025 and has
suffered substantial incarceration. It is further
submitted that the applicant had no direct role
or involvement in the operation, management
or administration of the alleged Bancoin trading
platform/accounts and has been implicated
merely on the basis of conjectures and
surmises. Learned counsel further submits that
there is no legally admissible material on record
connecting the applicant with the alleged
fraudulent transactions and that the applicant
has been charge-sheeted under incorrect and
exaggerated provisions of law. It is also argued
that the prosecution case is primarily
documentary in nature, the evidence already
stands collected during investigation and,
therefore, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping the applicant in continued judicial
custody. It is further submitted that, till date,
only one prosecution witness has been
examined and, therefore, the trial is likely to
take considerable time in its conclusion.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that
the allegations against the applicant are serious
in nature involving large-scale financial fraud
and cheating of innocent investors. It is
submitted that the investigation has revealed
that the applicant is one of the beneficiaries of
the amount defrauded from the complainant,
inasmuch as, a sum of ₹4,00,000/-, deposited
by the complainant on 20.09.2023, was
transferred into the account of the firm
associated with the applicant. It is further
submitted that the applicant has criminal
antecedents and four criminal cases are stated
to be registered against him. Learned State
Counsel, therefore, submits that considering the
2026:UHC:4043
gravity of the offence, the manner in which the
alleged fraud was perpetrated and the criminal
history of the applicant, he does not deserve
any indulgence from this Court.
6. Learned State counsel vehemently
opposed the bail application.
7. The allegations against the applicant
pertain to a well-planned and organised
financial fraud involving huge monetary
transactions running into crores of rupees. The
investigation prima facie reveals that a part of
the defrauded amount was transferred to the
account of the firm associated with the
applicant, thereby indicating his nexus with the
alleged offence. The nature and gravity of the
accusations, coupled with the modus operandi
adopted for duping the complainant on the
pretext of cryptocurrency investment, cannot be
ignored. Moreover, the applicant is stated to
have criminal antecedents with four other cases
registered against him.
8. Considering the seriousness of the
offence, the possibility of influencing witnesses
and the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case
for grant of bail at this stage.
9. Accordingly, the bail application is
rejected. However, considering the fact that the
applicant is in judicial custody since July, 2025
and only one prosecution witness has been
examined till date, the learned trial Court is
directed to expedite the trial proceedings and
make all endeavours to conclude the same, as
expeditiously as possible, without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
22.05.2026
Arpan
ARPAN Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb
JAISWAL
7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98744
6351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.05.22 13:23:56 +05’30’
