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
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
Petitioner(s)
Pankaj
Adv. Not available
Respondent(s)
STATE Advocate - P.P
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts