Allahabad High Court
SUNEEL KUMAR @ SUNIL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that bail is appropriate in the present circumstances and allowed the application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for Suneel Kumar, who was charged with IPC offences (420, 468, 471, 120‑B) and IT Act offences (66‑C, 66‑D) relating to alleged cyber fraud and forged GST refunds. The applicant pleaded innocence, claiming he was falsely implicated and had not received any money, while the State argued that the applicant and co‑accused were involved in a cyber fraud using a specific mobile number and email ID. After reviewing the record, the Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, found the case suitable for bail given the circumstances and the pendency of trial. The bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions restricting intimidation of witnesses, tampering with evidence, and ensuring the applicant’s presence at trial dates. The order expressly limited its scope to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s independent assessment of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the serious charges under the IPC and IT Act.
- Whether the conditions imposed are sufficient to safeguard the trial process and prevent witness intimidation.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 420, 468, 471
- Information Technology Act — s. 66-C, 66-D
Subjects
- bail
- cyber fraud
- GST refund fraud
- IPC offences
- IT Act offences
- presumption of innocence
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10504 of 2026
Suneel Kumar @ Sunil Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhananjai Rai, Vibhu Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri B.P.
Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant, with a prayer
to release him on bail in Case Crime No.113 of 2025, under Sections 420,
468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 66-C and 66D of I.T. Act, registered
at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Aligarh, during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to
ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the first information report has
been lodged against unknown and the name of the applicant has surfaced
during investigation and the applicant has not received any amount in his
bank account. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail
since 18.02.2026, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It
has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the
Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant
and it has been submitted by him that the applicant and other co-accused
persons are said to have indulged in cyber fraud with an object to claim
forged refund of the GST and one mobile number and email ID has been
found involved in the alleged cyber fraud.
5. First information report has been lodged against unknown and the name of
the applicant has surfaced during investigation and the applicant has not
received any amount in his bank account. One mobile phone and email ID
BAIL No. 10504 of 2026
2
has been found involved in the alleged cyber fraud. It is further submitted
that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.02.2026.
6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find
it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Suneel Kumar @ Sunil Kumar involved in the
aforesaid case crime shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned :-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat,
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free
to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.
April 20, 2026
RKM
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…