Allahabad High Court

NITISH KUMAR DWIVEDIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the CrPC for Nitish Kumar Dwivedi, who was charged in a cyber‑crime case involving alleged money laundering and offences under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 61(2) of the IPC and Section 66‑D of the IT Act. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the mobile number and bank accounts implicated did not belong to him, and that the co‑accused’s statement was unreliable. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these contentions. The Court found that the applicant had no criminal history, had been in custody for over three months, and that the prosecution had not shown any risk of evidence tampering, flight, or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 CrPC given the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented.
Whether the prosecution has established a reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing if bail is granted.
Whether the applicant’s alleged involvement is substantiated despite not being named in the FIR and reliance on a co‑accused’s statement.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
Indian Penal Code — s. 308(2), 318(4), 61(2)
Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66-D

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
cyber crime
Information Technology Act
evidence reliability
presumption of innocence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14397 of 2026

Nitish Kumar Dwivedi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Mishra, Vinay Kumar
Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K.Sharma, learned
A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on
record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with
a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2024,
under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 61(2) BNS and Section 66-D of Information
Technology Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Aligarh during the
pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the
first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The alleged mobile number from which call was made to the informant does
not belong to the applicant. The alleged sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- (seventy five
lakhs) was transferred in four different bank accounts. It is contended that
the applicant is not an account holder of any of the banks, in which the
alleged amount was transferred. The name of the applicant was disclosed
by co-accused Sanjay Tiwari while in police custody. The said statement
insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. The applicant is not a
beneficiary of any illicit transaction. No amount has been credited in the
bank account of the applicant. Recovery of a mobile phone has been shown
from the possession of the applicant. The said mobile phone belongs to the
applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The case
BAIL No. 14397 of 2026
2

of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of other co-accused. The
applicant is in jail since 15.01.2026 having no criminal history and in case
he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first
information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-
accused Sanjay Tiwari while in police custody. The applicant is not an
account holder of any of the banks, in which the alleged money was
transferred. There is no report that the alleged mobile number from which
call was made to the informant belongs to the applicant. There is no
independent witness to the alleged recovery. Moreover, the applicant has
remained confined for more than three months and there is no hope of early
conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been
brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would
either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness,
without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant Nitish Kumar Dwivedi, involved in the aforesaid case
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the
conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
May 6, 2026
Lbm/-

Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…