Bombay High Court
ADITYA DAYANAND RANAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that, given the settlement, the applicant’s clean record and the absence of compelling reasons to detain him, bail should be granted.
Summary
The High Court considered the bail application of Aditya Dayanand Rana, accused in a cyber‑fraud case involving deception, extortion and the transmission of obscene material under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The prosecution alleged that Rana, using his mobile phone, facilitated a scheme where a co‑accused impersonated a woman on Instagram and WhatsApp, obtained obscene content from the informant and extorted a total of Rs.94.47 lakh, of which Rana received Rs.38.69 lakh. The informant later settled the matter, having received partial restitution and expressing no objection to Rana’s release on bail. The court noted Rana’s lack of prior criminal record, his young age, and the settlement, and found no reason to deny bail. Accordingly, the court granted bail on condition of a surety bond and compliance with attendance and conduct directives. The order expressly stated that the bail decision does not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the settlement between the informant and the accused negates the necessity for continued pre‑trial detention.
- Whether the nature of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the IT Act warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s personal circumstances and lack of antecedents justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 308(2), 318(4), 319(2)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66D, 67A
Subjects
- bail
- cyber‑fraud
- extortion
- obscene material
- IT Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- settlement
Judgment
WAKLE
MANOJ MANOJ 902-BA-2401-2026.DOC
JANARDHAN
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Date: 2026.09.19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
12:32:04 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2401 OF 2026
Aditya Dayanand Rana …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Marmik Shah (through VC) a/w Mr. Mayuresh Deshmukh &
Adv. Dikshit Jain i/by Mr. Kamlesh Tiwari, for the Applicant.
Mr. Rohan Samant, for the informant.
Mr. V.A. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. Mr. Rohan Samant, learned counsel appears for the
informant and seeks leave to file the Vakalatnama. Registry to
accept his Vakalatnama.
3. Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with
Cr.No.132 of 2025, registered with Cyber Police Station, Central
Region, Worli, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections
318(4), 319(2) and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(“BNS”) and Sections 66D and 67A of the Information Technology
Act, 2000, on the report dated 15 th August, 2025 filed by Mr. Divit
Lalitkumar Jain (Informant).
4. The prosecution case is that between 6 th February 2025 to 8th
August 2025, via Instagram and WhatsApp, accused No.2- Jasmeen
Kaur, deceived the informant by personating her as Saumya
Avasthi, established friendship with the informant and, after
gaining his trust, induced him to engage in obscene chats and
sending his obscene photos and videos to her. Further, by
Page 1 of 3
MANOJ 902-BA-2401-2026.DOC
threatening the informant to cause his defamation by making those
photos and videos viral, she dishonestly induced him to pay
Rs.94,47,000/- to A2. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned,
as alleged, said crime was committed with the help of the
applicant’s mobile phone and he has received total Rs.38,69,999/-
out of the aforesaid amount. A2 is still absconding and A3 - Aman
Rana, is yet not arrested. Therefore, the applicant came to be
arrested. On completion of investigation, police submitted the
charge-sheet. The Sessions Court rejected the bail application of the
applicant. Hence, this application.
5. Learned counsel for the parties state that, during pendency of
this application, the informant has settled this matter. As out of said
amount of Rs.94,47,000/-, the applicant has paid Rs.19,00,000/-
on 27th August, 2026 by Demand Draft and, he has agreed to pay
remaining amount of Rs.19,69,999/- on or before 1 st January, 2027.
To fulfill that promise, the applicant has given to the informant
post-dated cheques drawn on the bank account of the applicant’s
uncle. The informant has already received an amount of
Rs.27,00,000/-, which was seized in this crime during the course of
the investigation. Therefore, the informant has no objection to
release the applicant on bail. To support the aforesaid, the Consent
Terms are tendered by the learned counsel for the parties. It is
taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. The applicant
has no criminal antecedents. He is of young age.
6. In the wake of above, I am inclined to allow the application.
Hence, following Order:-
(i) Applicant – Aditya Dayanand Rana shall be released on
bail in connection with Cr.No.132 of 2025, registered with
Cyber Police Station, Central Region, Worli, Mumbai, on his
Page 2 of 3
MANOJ 902-BA-2401-2026.DOC
furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or
two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Cyber Police
Station, Central Region, Worli, Mumbai, on 1st day of month
in every three months, between 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m., till
the conclusion of the trial.
(iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witness to prevent them from deposing
against him.
(v) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish
his contact number and residential address to the
Investigation Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities for
which he has been arraigned in this case.
(vii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
application and should not influence the outcome of the trial
and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case.
7. Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.