DEVI LAL vs State of Rajasthan — 236/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Refused on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: RJSM010004992026

Filing Number

355/2026

Filing Date

18-Mar-2026

Registration No

236/2026

Registration Date

18-Mar-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Sawai Madhopur HQ

Judge

3-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Refused

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

309

Police Station

Mantown PS

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DEVI LAL

    Adv. Radhey Shyam Jogi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Rajasthan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Order

    Case Summary: Case 236/2026, Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan Court Decision: The Additional Session Judge, Sawai Madhopur, rejected Devi Lal's second bail application on March 24, 2026. The court found that Devi Lal allegedly provided his bank account to cyber fraud perpetrators, who deposited ₹7,02,075 in fraudulent funds. The court held that providing bank accounts to cybercriminals is a serious offense comparable to committing fraud itself, noting that disrupting such mule accounts would hinder criminal operations and protect the public. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur

  4. 19-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 236/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Case 236/2026, Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan Court Decision: The Additional Session Judge, Sawai Madhopur, rejected Devi Lal's second bail application on March 24, 2026. The court found that Devi Lal allegedly provided his bank account to cyber fraud perpetrators, who deposited ₹7,02,075 in fraudulent funds. The court held that providing bank accounts to cybercriminals is a serious offense comparable to committing fraud itself, noting that disrupting such mule accounts would hinder criminal operations and protect the public. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case