MAHENDRA MEENA vs State of Rajasthan — 245/2026

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

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: RJSM010005272026

Filing Number

367/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

245/2026

Registration Date

23-Mar-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Sawai Madhopur HQ

Judge

1-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

94

Police Station

Choth Ka Barwara PS

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MAHENDRA MEENA

    Adv. PRASHANT SHARMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Rajasthan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Order

    Case Summary: Mahendra Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (245/2026) The Session Court rejected Mahendra Meena's bail petition under Section 483 CrPC. Meena, aged 23, was arrested on 18-03-2026 in connection with FIR No. 94/2026 for allegedly operating a "mule account" (bank account 520101210276920) used to receive cybercrime fraud proceeds (₹14,000 and ₹7,500 from two separate cyber theft complaints). The court found prima facie evidence of crimes under IPC Sections 318(4), 319(2), 238(C) and IT Act Section 66D, determining that bail was not warranted given the serious nature of cybercrime charges and evidence against the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 245/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Mahendra Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (245/2026) The Session Court rejected Mahendra Meena's bail petition under Section 483 CrPC. Meena, aged 23, was arrested on 18-03-2026 in connection with FIR No. 94/2026 for allegedly operating a "mule account" (bank account 520101210276920) used to receive cybercrime fraud proceeds (₹14,000 and ₹7,500 from two separate cyber theft complaints). The court found prima facie evidence of crimes under IPC Sections 318(4), 319(2), 238(C) and IT Act Section 66D, determining that bail was not warranted given the serious nature of cybercrime charges and evidence against the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case