Allahabad High Court
AJIT YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence and no reasonable apprehension of tampering or witness intimidation.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ajit Yadav under Section 483 BNSS in a case involving alleged violations of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act and the Information Technology Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, asserting that the recovered mobile phones belonged to him and that there was no independent witness or cyber‑cell report linking him to the offences. The State opposed bail but could not produce evidence to counter the applicant’s submissions. The court observed that, prima facie, there was no corroborative evidence, the applicant had no criminal history, and he had already been in custody for over two months. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and not pressurize witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS given the lack of independent evidence and witnesses
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or delaying trial
Legislation cited
- Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act — s. 3/21(2)
- BNS — s. 111(2)(B), 318(4), 61(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
- Information Technology Act — s. 66D
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- lack of evidence
- mobile phone recovery
- no criminal antecedent
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16507 of 2026
Ajit Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Kumar, Utkarsh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rohit Shukla, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Utkarsh Pandey,
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 318(4), 111(2)(B), 61(2) BNS, Section 3/21(2) of Banning
of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act and Section 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 three mobile phones has been
shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged
recovery. The recovered mobile phones belong to the applicant. The alleged
mobile phones do 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 20.03.2026 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on
bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA 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
BAIL No. 16507 of 2026
2
Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged
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 two months and after submission of
charge sheet 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 Ajit Yadav, 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…