Pankaj vs STATE Advocate - P.P — 155/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Refused on 12th March 2026.

Bail Application

CNR: RJJH010004852026

Case disposed

Filing Number

375/2026

Filing Date

11-03-2026

Registration No

155/2026

Registration Date

11-03-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Jhunjhunu District HQ

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Refused

FIR Details

FIR Number

1

Police Station

Cyber Police Station (Jhunjhunu)

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

Pankaj

Adv. Not available

Respondent(s)

STATE Advocate - P.P

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District and Sessions Judge

12-03-2026

Disposed

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Order

Case Summary: Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan (155/2026) Court Decision: The Session Judge of Jhunjhunu rejected Pankaj's bail application under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pankaj was accused of conspiring with others to defraud a complainant through an online investment scam, fraudulently obtaining ₹1,24,03,785 between August 29, 2025 and November 8, 2025 by posing as employees of a fake "Reliance Realty" company and luring the victim to invest in fictitious schemes. Key Reasoning: The court held that since co-accused persons had previously been denied bail by the same court, the current petitioner's case was not distinguishable. Given the serious nature of cyber fraud crimes, the ongoing investigation stage, and absence of any exceptional circumstances, granting bail would be inappropriate and contrary to justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan (155/2026) Court Decision: The Session Judge of Jhunjhunu rejected Pankaj's bail application under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pankaj was accused of conspiring with others to defraud a complainant through an online investment scam, fraudulently obtaining ₹1,24,03,785 between August 29, 2025 and November 8, 2025 by posing as employees of a fake "Reliance Realty" company and luring the victim to invest in fictitious schemes. Key Reasoning: The court held that since co-accused persons had previously been denied bail by the same court, the current petitioner's case was not distinguishable. Given the serious nature of cyber fraud crimes, the ongoing investigation stage, and absence of any exceptional circumstances, granting bail would be inappropriate and contrary to justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DJ ADJ Jhunjhunu District HQ All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case