Allahabad High Court
RAMBABUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Rambabu, who was arrested in a cyber‑fraud case (Crime No. 113 of 2025) involving IPC offences (420, 468, 471, 120‑B) and IT Act offences (66C, 66D). The applicant argued that a co‑accused had already been granted bail, that his role was similar, and that he had been detained since 18‑Feb‑2026 without any financial benefit from the alleged fraud. The State opposed bail. After reviewing the record, the court, without commenting on the merits, found the case suitable for bail and ordered release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, imposing standard conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses. 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 to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the alleged offences and the pendency of trial.
- Whether the applicant’s role is sufficiently similar to that of a co‑accused who has already been released on bail.
- Whether imposing conditions on bail is appropriate in this circumstance.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 420, 468, 471
- Information Technology Act — s. 66C, 66D
Subjects
- bail
- cyber fraud
- Section 483 B.N.S.S.
- IPC offences
- IT Act
- high court
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15047 of 2026
Rambabu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Keshri, Ramanand
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Keshri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
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 and 66C and 66D of I.T. Act, registered at Police Station
Cyber Crime, District Aligarh during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused
Suneel Kumar @ Sunil Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 20.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.10504 of 2026. It is further submitted that role of the applicant is not
distinguishable from the role of co-accused Suneel Kumar @ Sunil Kumar
and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 18.2.2026. It is also
submitted that the applicant 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. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail
to the applicant.
5. FIR has been lodged against unknown and name of the applicant has
surfaced during investigation and he has not received any amount in his bank
account. During investigation, it has also surfaced that one mobile phone and
one email id has been found involved in the cyber fraud.
6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
BAIL No. 15047 of 2026
2
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 Rambabu involved in the aforesaid case crime 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
with the following conditions :-
(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.
May 5, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…