Authority: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur
Order Date: 24/08/2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Lokesh Choudhary, S/o Shri Harchand, aged ~26, residing at Dhani Road, Ward No. 01, Ramdev Colony, Kishangarh, Ajmer; and Dheeraj Gattani, S/o Shri Manoj Gattani, aged ~26, residing at Meera Marg, New Colony, Kuchaman City, Didwana‑Kuchaman. Both were in judicial custody at Central Jail Ajmer since 05.08.2025.
- Respondent: State of Rajasthan, represented by the Public Prosecutor.
- FIR No. 0135/2025 dated 12.04.2025 lodged at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Ajmer, under IPC Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), BNS Act 2023 Section 111(2)(b), and Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 Sections 3/21 and 5/21.
- Complaint by Kantilal alleged that the petitioners, through representations, induced him to invest Rs 3,36,100 in a scheme called “VIP Trade”. The complainant further introduced the petitioners to friends, relatives, and acquaintances who collectively invested approximately Rs 25 lakh in VIP Trade.
- Payments were allegedly made to Lokesh Choudhary and persons acting on his behalf via PhonePe, RTGS and other mechanisms into bank accounts specified by him.
- It was alleged that the accused had established an unregistered company named VIP Trade and, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, induced investments and dishonestly retained the amounts.
- Petitioners’ counsel argued innocence, stating they were merely employees of the concerned company, did not give false assurances, and received no money from the complainant. He emphasized that the charge‑sheet had already been filed, the investigation was complete, and continued detention would be punitive.
- The Public Prosecutor contended that bail should be denied due to risk of absconding, witness intimidation, and evidence tampering, noting a prior bail denial on 03.01.2026 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh.
Final Outcome
- The Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the investigation was concluded, the petitioners had been in custody for over a year, and there was no material indicating flight risk, evidence tampering, or witness intimidation.
- The Court noted the petitioners’ clean antecedents, their status as sole earning members of their families, and the hardship their continued incarceration would cause.
- Accordingly, the bail applications were allowed. Each petitioner is to furnish a personal bond of Rs 20,000 and two sureties of Rs 10,000 each, subject to any additional conditions imposed by the trial court.
- The Court clarified that its observations are solely for the purpose of disposing of the bail petitions and do not constitute any judgment on the merits of the pending criminal case.
Topics: Criminal Bail, Financial Fraud