Allahabad High Court

SHUBHAM RAIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

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

Summary

Shubham Rai was arrested in a cyber‑crime case (Crime No. 43 of 2025) under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated, asserting that the recovered cash and mobile phone belonged to him and that there was no independent witness linking him to the offence. The only incriminating material was a call‑detail record showing telephone conversations with a co‑accused, which the applicant argued did not establish a nexus. The State opposed bail but could not refute these submissions. The High Court, finding no independent evidence, no risk of tampering or intimidation, and noting the applicant’s clean record and six‑month pre‑trial detention, granted bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the nature of the charges under the IPC and IT Act.
Whether a mere telephonic conversation with a co‑accused constitutes sufficient ground to deny bail.
Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Banking? (B.N.S.) — s. 61
Indian Penal Code — s. 111(1), 111(2)(b), 241, 317, 318(4), 3(5)
Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66(C), 66(D)

Subjects

bail
cyber crime
false implication
telephonic evidence
prima facie
no independent witness
clean criminal record
IT Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2130 of 2026

Shubham Rai
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shweta Nishad, Suyash Shekhar, Vinod
Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra,
learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 111(1),
111(2)(b), 241, 317, 318(4), 61 B.N.S. and 66(C) and 66(D) I.T. Act, Police
Station- Cyber Crime, District- Gorakhpur during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. Recovery of Indian currency of Rs.3400/- and
a Samsung Galaxy mobile phone has been shown from the applicant. The
said Indian currency and the mobile phone belong to the applicant. There is
no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered items cannot
be linked with the offence. No amount has been credited in the bank account
of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction.
The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Shailesh
Chaudhari. The only evidence against the applicant is that as per the Call
Detail Report (CDR), he was allegedly in telephonic conversion with co-
accused Shailesh Chaudhari from 2.8.2025 to 27.10.2025. It is contended
that mere telephonic conversation between the applicant and the co-accused
does not establish any nexus with the alleged offence. There is no adverse
report of the cyber cell connecting the applicant with the commission of
the present offence. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to
link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is neither a member of
BAIL No. 2130 of 2026
2

any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate.
The applicant is in jail since 5.11.2025 having no criminal history. In case he
is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State 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
recovery. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant.
Mere telephonic conversation with the co-accused Shailesh Chaudhari does
not link the applicant with the offence, in absence of any adverse report of
the cyber cell. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the
applicant has presently remained confined for more than six 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 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, Shubham Rai involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

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 5, 2026
S.S.

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…