Allahabad High Court
RAJ SHANTILAL PATELversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that, given the applicant's lack of criminal history, the manner of his identification, and the pendency of the trial, bail should be granted under Section 483 B.N.S.S.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Raj Shantilal Patel, who was arrested in a cyber‑fraud case (Crime No.06 of 2024) involving IPC offences (384, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120‑B) and IT Act offences (66‑C, 66‑D). The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that his name surfaced only because the IMEI of a mobile phone he once used was later used by another person, and that he has no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the alleged fraud. After reviewing the record, the Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, found the circumstances suitable for bail and ordered release on a personal bond with conditions. The order expressly limited its effect to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s future judgment.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case involving multiple IPC and IT Act offences.
- Whether the identification of the applicant through an IMEI number constitutes sufficient ground to deny bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 384, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Information Technology Act — s. 66-C, 66-D
Subjects
- bail
- cyber fraud
- IMEI identification
- Indian Penal Code
- Information Technology Act
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- trial pendency
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1293 of 2026
Raj Shantilal Patel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Sayyed Kashif
Abbas Rizvi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on
record.
2. Heard Shri Sayyed Kashif Abbas Rizvi along with Shri Ajay Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri S.D.Shukla,
learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
3. 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.06 of 2024, under
Sections 384, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 66-C,
66-D of I.T. Act, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District
Sambhal, during pendency of the trial.
4. 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 only on the basis of the fact that the IMEI number of
the mobile phone was used by the applicant and presently the said mobile
phone was used by some other person. It is further submitted that the
applicant is languishing in jail since 09.12.2025 and the applicant is
having no criminal history, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty,
if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency
BAIL No. 1293 of 2026
2
of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of
trial.
5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant.
6. The first information report has been lodged against unknown and as
per first information report, some cyber fraud is said to have been
committed with the first informant and during investigation, the name of
the applicant has surfaced only on the basis of the fact that IMEI number
of the mobile phone, through which, the call was made to the first
informant was used by the applicant long ago, however, the said mobile
phone was currently being used by the co-accused Kaif Sheikh Saifi. It is
further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 09.12.2025
and the applicant is having no criminal history.
7. 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.
8. Let the applicant- Raj Shantilal Patel 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
BAIL No. 1293 of 2026
3
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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. 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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
May 7, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…