Allahabad High Court

AKASH SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 January 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court held that the bail application is rejected as no case for bail is made out.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. for Akash Sharma, who was charged with offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66‑D of the Information Technology Act for alleged cyber‑fraud involving a loss of Rs 3.16 crore. The applicant’s counsel argued that he was falsely implicated based on a co‑accused’s confession, had no prior criminal record, and that the charge‑sheet was already filed, making further custody unnecessary. The State’s counsel contended that the applicant was part of a gang that defrauded the informant, that substantial evidence including transaction records linked him to the crime, and that bail could facilitate witness tampering. The judge observed that prima facie evidence of the applicant’s involvement could not be ruled out and that the matters raised by the applicant pertained to the merits of the case, which are not relevant for bail. Consequently, the court found no sufficient ground to grant bail and rejected the application, emphasizing that the decision does not prejudice the trial.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the serious offences alleged, considering the prima facie evidence and risk of witness tampering.
Whether the applicant’s claim of false implication and lack of prior criminal record outweighs the prosecution’s evidence.
Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged cyber‑fraud justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 318, 319, 336, 338, 340, 61
Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66

Subjects

bail
cyber fraud
Indian Penal Code
Information Technology Act
Section 66D
prima facie evidence
witness tampering
gravity of offence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28996 of
2025

Akash Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Komal Prasad, Santosh
Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aradhana Singh, G.A., Siya
Ram Verma

Court No. - 68

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Verma and Sri Siyaram Verma,
learned counsel for the first informant, Shri Ajai Singh, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

The present bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been
filed on behalf of applicant, Akash Sharma with a prayer to
release him on bail in Case Crime No. 54 of 2025, under Sections
318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS & Section 66-D
I.T. Act, Police Station - Cyber Crime, District Gautam Buddh
Nagar.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant
is innocent person and he has falsely implicated in present case
on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Sumit
Sharma. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case with ulterior motive. It is further submitted that
charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and the
custodial interrogation is no longer required. There is no credible
evidence against the applicant to connect him in the present case.
BAIL No. 28996 of 2025
2

The applicant has been implicated only on the basis of
apprehension. The applicant is not responsible for the loss for the
investment made by the informant. He further submits that the
Mobile Number and the IP Address, which was used for the
alleged transaction of money do not relate to the applicant.
Learned counsel has next argued that the applicant has no
previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail,
he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. He is languishing in jail
since 25.06.2025. Hence the prayer for bail is made out.

Learned A.G.A for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail and has further submitted that the accused-applicant along
with the co-accused, have defrauded the first-informant of Rs. 03
crore 13 lakh. It is further stated that first- informant was an
active person on social media, he advised him to stock trade with
his company namely Ratefine Investment Ltd./Ratefine India
Equity Fund. On assurance the first informant invested a sum of
Rs. 3.16 Crore, but the money was not credited at the relevant
time in the account of the first-informant and the same was
credited in the account of accused person and when first-
informant suspected foul play, he filled-up a withdrawal-slip to
withdraw the said money, but the said money could not be
withdrawn as the same was not credited, therefore, the accused-
applicant has committed a cyber fraud with the first-informant.
Learned A.G.A has further submitted that the accused-applicant
is having a gang, which indulges in committing cyber fraud with
some innocent persons and the Investigating Officer of this case
has also collected some relevant transactions made from the
account of first-informant, it was found that in the account of
above Firm of the applicant, Rs. 22,00,000/- (twenty two lac
only) was credited from the account of first-informant and the
Investigating Officer also collected credible and concrete
evidences during the course of investigation implicating the
applicant.
Learned A.G.A has lastly submitted that the applicant is named in
F.I.R and he committed crime of a serious in nature and in this
case direct evidences are also available in the case diary, if the
applicant is granted bail, there is a chance to destroy the
witnesses by threatening them and destroying their evidence,
therefore, the instant bail application is devoid of merit and the
BAIL No. 28996 of 2025
3

same is liable to be cancelled.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it
would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this
stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But,
from the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation
so far, prima facie, the involvement of the accused in the present
case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate
the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to
release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain
to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while
considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to
form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed
an offence.

In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of
punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.

It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail
application is limited to the decision of the bail application and
any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case.

January 20, 2026
Vinod.
(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…