Allahabad High Court
ROSHAN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail as there is no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence and no risk of tampering or witness intimidation.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Roshan Kumar in a cyber‑crime case (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14920 of 2025) involving alleged offences under several IPC sections and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2005. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the mobile number linked to the alleged calls did not belong to him, and that the sole incriminating statement against him came from a co‑accused made while in police custody, which the court found unreliable. No independent witness or corroborative evidence linked the applicant to the recovery of phones, ATM cards, SIMs or bank passbooks, and he had no prior criminal record. The court noted that a co‑accused, Shriniwas Kumar, had already been granted bail, and that the applicant had been in custody for over a year and a half with no prospect of a speedy trial. Consequently, the court held that there was no reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses and ordered the applicant to be released on bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate bail disposition for an accused who was not named in the FIR and for whom the only incriminating evidence is a custodial statement by a co‑accused?
- Does the lack of corroborative evidence and the applicant's clean criminal record justify granting bail despite the seriousness of the alleged cyber‑offences?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 111(2)B, 111(3)5, 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
- Information Technology Act, 2005 — s. 66(C), 66(D)
Subjects
- bail
- cyber crime
- Information Technology Act
- lack of evidence
- parity with co‑accused
- pre‑trial detention
- no criminal antecedents
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14920 of 2025
Roshan Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghavendra Pati Tripathi, Swati
Agrawal Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar
Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to
enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 05 of 2025, under
Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 111(2)B/3(5)
B.N.S. and 66(C), 66(D) Information and Technology Act, 2005,
Police Station Cyber Crime, District Prayagraj during the
pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
was not named in the first information report. The mobile number
(9031717941), from which alleged call was made, does not
belong to the applicant. During the course of investigation, the
name of one Raj Kumar Yadav surfaced, who in turn disclosed
the name of co-accused Rajnesh Kumar. Subsequently, upon
analysis of the CDR details of the alleged mobile no. 9031717941
it was found that calls were made to various mobile numbers.
Thereafter, the name of one Aakash Verma surfaced, who while
in police custody disclosed the name of applicant. It is contended
that the said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is
unreliable. False recovery of two mobile phones, five ATM cards,
five Airtel sims and two passbooks of different banks have been
BAIL No. 14920 of 2025
2
shown from the possession of the applicant. The recovered
mobile phones, ATM cards, five Airtel sims and pass books do
not link the applicant with the offence. There is no independent
witness to the alleged recovery. No amount has been transferred
in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not a
beneficiary of any illicit transaction. At this stage there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence.
Further, the applicant is neither a member of any organized crime
syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Investigation
has been completed. Charge-sheet has been filed. No custodial
interrogation is required. It is next contended that co-accused
Shriniwas Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order
dated 15.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
15665 of 2025 (Shriniwas Kumar v. State of U.P.). The applicant
claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 9.11.2024 having no
criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal
of 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 co-accused Aakash Verma, while in
police custody. There is no independent witness to the alleged
recovery. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link
the applicant with the offence. The co-accused Shriniwas Kumar
has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for
almost one year six months and after submission of the charge-
sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore,
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- Roshan Kumar involved in the aforesaid
BAIL No. 14920 of 2025
3
case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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.
May 7, 2026
S.S.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…