Allahabad High Court

RANVEER KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that in the absence of any FIR naming, corroborative evidence, and given the applicant's clean record and prolonged pre‑trial detention, he is entitled to bail.

Summary

Ranveer Kumar was arrested in connection with a cyber‑crime case (Crime No. 11 of 2025) based solely on information from an informer, although his name does not appear in the FIR. The applicant contended that the mobile number and alleged transaction attributed to him were false, and that there was no independent witness or cyber‑cell report linking him to the offence. The State opposed bail but could not produce corroborative evidence. The Court observed that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, has been in custody for over a year, and that there is no likelihood of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and lacks corroborative evidence, is entitled to bail?
Whether the State can demonstrate a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail?

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 111, 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
Information Technology Act — s. 66C, 66D
Public Gambling Act — s. 3

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
false implication
informer
pre‑trial detention
evidence
no FIR naming
cyber crime

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25818 of 2025

Ranveer Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deeksha Gupta, Rahul Kumar, Siddharth
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 Nagendra Kumar Mishra,
learned Brief Holder 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. 11 of 2025, under Sections 318(4),
319(2), 111, 336(3), 338, 340(2) B.N.S.; 66C, 66D of I.T. Act; and 3 of
Public Gambling Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Azamgarh during
the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not
named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The alleged mobile number (9101828075), from which call
was made to the informant, does not belong to the applicant. The alleged
sum of Rs.5,000/- was neither received nor transferred to the bank account
of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction.
The implication of the applicant in the present case surfaced on the basis of
the information furnished by an informer. There is no report from the Cyber
Cell to indicate that the mobile number of the applicant was used in or is in
any manner linked to the commission of the present offence at any stage.
Recovery of a mobile phone and an Aadhar Card 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
also does not connect 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 10.04.2025
BAIL No. 25818 of 2025
2

having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State 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 implication of the applicant in the alleged
offence surfaced on the basis of the information furnished by an informer.
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
applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained
confined for more than one year 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- Ranveer 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 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 5, 2026
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…