Allahabad High Court
SUNIL RALIYAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The bail application was rejected, as the applicant was deemed a beneficiary of the cyber fraud and a flight risk.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sunil Raliya under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNS Act and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, relating to a cyber‑fraud case. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR and that the only link to him was a co‑accused’s confessional statement, asserting his innocence and lack of flight risk. The State contended that the investigation established his complicity and highlighted his antecedent criminal record of eleven cases, deeming him a flight risk. After evaluating the evidence and the applicant’s criminal history, the Court concluded that the applicant was the beneficiary of the fraud and posed a flight risk. Consequently, the Court rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- The applicant’s entitlement to bail despite the absence of direct evidence linking him to the offence
- Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents and alleged flight risk justify denial of bail
- The applicability of Sections 318(4), 61(2) of the BNS Act and Section 66D of the IT Act to the bail decision
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 318(4), 61(2)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66D
Subjects
- bail
- cyber fraud
- Information Technology Act
- Section 66D
- flight risk
- criminal antecedents
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29967 of 2025
Sunil Raliya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Prakash Pandey, Mahender,
Rochak Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Shri Chandra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant,
Shri Shashank Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the
records.
The instant bail application has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in
Case Crime No. 1 of 2025, under Sections 318 (4), 61 (2) of BNS and
Section 66D of I.T. Act, Police Station Cyber Crime Kannauj, District
Kannauj, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail
application in the Court below has been rejected by the learned Sessions
Judge, Kannauj vide order dated 18.8.2024 and the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 26.7.2025.
Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the bail plea has
vehemently submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The FIR
has been lodged nominating the holder of WhatsApp No. 7409187883
and one Haider Ali Sarkar. The applicant has not been nominated. The
FIR was lodged with the allegation that the informant was contacted by
WhatsApp No. 7409187883 offering him part time job and was added to a
telegram group. The informant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/-
into HDFC Bank Account Number 50200022538280, IFSC-
HDFC0002337, as fee. The informant on further instructions deposited a
sum of Rs.31,000/- and Rs.1,21,000/- through UPI to Sunil
Raliya3928@oksbi and abhi769182-1okaxis, respectively. Rs.5,000/- was
BAIL No. 29967 of 2025
2
refunded to the informant but remaining amount was frozen and
Rs.2,00,000/- was demanded to unfreeze it which also the informant
deposited. Later on, a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was demanded from
the informant to improve his credit score whereafter, he realized that
cyber fraud had been committed. Learned counsel for the applicant has
argued that applicant was not named in the FIR nor named in the
statement of the informant. The name of the applicant has surfaced in the
confessional statement of co-accused Rohan Loat who is a beneficiary of
the cyber fraud. It is argued that apart from the statement of the co-
accused there is no other evidence to implicate the applicant in the
commission of crime. It is also argued that the applicant undertakes to
cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence, bail
has been prayed for.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail plea by
submitting that the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the
crime stands established by the investigation. It is accordingly prayed that
the bail application warrants outright rejection.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
records, the Court finds that the applicant is the beneficiary of the cyber
fraud. He has criminal antecedents of 11 cases and is a flight risk. This
Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
February 26, 2026
Vinod.
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…