Allahabad High Court

ALOK KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

Alok Kumar was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 11 of 2025) involving alleged offences under the B.N.S., Income Tax Act and Public Gambling Act, but he was not named in the FIR. The applicant contended that the mobile number and transaction attributed to him were false, and that the only evidence was an informer’s statement with no independent witness. The State opposed bail but could not refute these submissions. The Court observed that there was no corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offences, he had no criminal history, and he had already been detained for over a year with no prospect of a speedy trial. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, Alok Kumar, should be granted bail despite the charges under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 111, 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the B.N.S., 66C, 66D of the Income Tax Act and Section 7 of the Public Gambling Act.
Whether the lack of the applicant's name in the FIR and absence of corroborative evidence justify bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 111, 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
Income Tax Act — s. 66C, 66D
Public Gambling Act — s. 7

Subjects

bail
false implication
FIR
mobile evidence
pre‑trial detention
criminal antecedents
informant testimony

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27613 of 2025

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manvendra Singh, Rahul Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
learned A.G.A. 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 7 of
Public Gambling Act, Police Station Cyber Crime Thana Azamgarh, 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 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 09.04.2025 having no criminal
history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 27613 of 2025
2

4. Learned A.G.A. 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- Alok 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…