Vishal ur Visshu vs State Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 111/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Refused on 10th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: RJBD010004692026
Filing Number
362/2026
Filing Date
27-Feb-2026
Registration No
111/2026
Registration Date
27-Feb-2026
Court
DJ ADJ Bundi HQ
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
10-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Bail Refused
Last updated 05-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
1
Police Station
Cyber Thana Bundi
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Vishal ur Visshu
Adv. Rajkumar Dadhich
Respondent(s)
-
1.State Advocate - Public Prosecutor
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Mar-2026
JudgementView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Session Court of Bundi, Rajasthan rejected the bail application of Vishal Momtiya (accused in a cyber fraud case involving ₹2.44 crore) filed under Section 483 CrPC. The court found that the accused, along with co-accused, conspired to defraud the complainant by opening bank accounts in his company's name and conducting illegal transactions using cyber fraud techniques, constituting serious offenses under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 61(2) IPC and Section 66 IT Act, 2008. The court emphasized the gravity of cyber crimes affecting public trust and the accused's prior criminal background, holding that bail was unwarranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Mar-2026
Disposed
District and Sessions Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
Orders
District and Sessions Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District and Sessions Judge
-
04-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
27-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 111/2026
Court Decision Summary The Session Court of Bundi, Rajasthan rejected the bail application of Vishal Momtiya (accused in a cyber fraud case involving ₹2.44 crore) filed under Section 483 CrPC. The court found that the accused, along with co-accused, conspired to defraud the complainant by opening bank accounts in his company's name and conducting illegal transactions using cyber fraud techniques, constituting serious offenses under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 61(2) IPC and Section 66 IT Act, 2008. The court emphasized the gravity of cyber crimes affecting public trust and the accused's prior criminal background, holding that bail was unwarranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts