High CourtsSingle Bench

Nikita Prajapati vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 25 February 2026 · Citation: (2026) 02 MP CK 1831

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pramod Kumar Agrawal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 49, 61(2), 318(4), 336(3)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 7709 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 488 words

Pramod Kumar Agrawal, J

1.

This is third repeat application under Section 483 of BNSS filed for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.900/2024 registered at Police Station Kolar Road, District Bhopal (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 49, 336(3) & 61(2) of B.N.S. The applicant is in custody since 21.12.2024. Previous bail applications were dismissed on merits.

2.

As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the present applicant is that he alongwith co-accused persons misappropriated huge amount by committing cyber fraud. Therefore, case was registered against the present applicant under the aforesaid sections.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is a lady aged about 23 years. Applicant is not the main accused. In Court statement Preeti Shrivastava (PW-1) has not deposed against the applicant, Sheikh Sameer (PW-2) and Sheikh Faizan (PW-3) have stated that they did not know the present applicant. Bhumika (PW-4), Mohit (PW-5), Dinesh (PW-6), Ankit (PW-7) and Anil Meena (PW-8) have not supported the prosecution story and PW-9 has also not stated against the applicant. Offence is triable by JMFC. Applicant is in custody since 21.12.2024 i.e one year and three months. There is no criminal record of the applicant. The conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the bail application and submitted that the from from the present applicant cheque book, bank passbook, laptop, debit card, blank cheques, SIM cards, credit card, smart phones, etc., were seized which are related to the present crime. Applicant had provided bank accounts knowing that fraud was being committed to other persons and the money was deposited in the account of the applicant for which she was getting the regular commission. It is further submitted that now-a-days these type of crimes regarding cyber fraud are increasing in the country and innocent persons are targeted in such type of crimes. First bail application was dismissed on merits by Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 12.03.2025 passed in MCRC/3756/2025 and second bail application was also dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2025 passed in MCRC/28444/2025 and thereafter, there is no change in circumstances of the case. Hence, the applicant does not deserve grant of bail.

5.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6.

Looking to aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as seriousness of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

7.

Consequently, this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant, stands dismissed. However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

8.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Trial Court for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.