Allahabad High Court
AJAY KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- 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 by Ajay Kumar, who was arrested in connection with offences under Sections 111(2)(kha), 318(4), 61(2) of the IPC, the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 and Section 66D of the IT Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the recovered mobile phone belonged to him, and that there was no independent witness or cyber‑cell report linking him to the crime. The State opposed bail but could not produce evidence to counter the applicant’s claims. The Court observed that, prima facie, there was no corroborative evidence, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and he had already been detained for more than one and a half months without any risk of tampering or intimidation. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the pending charges under the IPC, Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act and IT Act.
- Whether there is sufficient evidence to justify denial of bail, including risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation.
Legislation cited
- Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 — s. 21(2), 3
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 111(2)(kha), 318(4), 61(2)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66D
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- mobile phone evidence
- lack of independent witness
- no criminal antecedents
- Section 66D
- Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15481 of 2026
Ajay Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinay Kumar Pathak
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
AGA for the State-respondent. Perused the 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. 164 of 2026,
under Sections 111(2)(kha), 318(4), 61(2) BNS, Section 3/21(2) of Banning
of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 and 66D I.T. Act, Police Station
- Ramgarhtal, District - Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. Recovery of a mobile phone has been shown
from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery.
The recovered mobile phone belongs to the applicant. The alleged mobile
phone does not connect the applicant with any offence. There is no adverse
cyber cell report against the applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. It is next contended that the
applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted
on behalf of such syndicate. The applicant is in jail since 21.03.2026 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 there is no independent witness to the alleged
BAIL No. 15481 of 2026
2
recovery. There is no adverse cyber cell report against the applicant. At this
stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant
has remained confined for more than one and half month 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 Ajay Kumar, 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.
May 14, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…