SAUMIL MODENWAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

     CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30549 of 2026

Shomil Modanwal And Another
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Mohd. Afzal, Prateek Sinha, Vikram
                                Singh Shrivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. At the outset, counsel for the applicants prays for and is permitted to
correct the name of the applicant no.1 in the memo of bail application.

2. Computer section is directed to correct the name of applicant no.1 in its
database accordingly.

3. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Vikram Singh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, and Sri
Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

4. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 50 of 2025, under Sections 318(2),
318(4), 61(2), 317(2), 111(3), 111(4), 111(6), 111(7) B.N.S. and 66C, 66D
I.T. Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Varanasi during the pendency
of the trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been
falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant no.2 is a registered
trader with the National Stock Exchange of India and is running a company
in the name and style of 'M/s. Angel One Limited' having its office at 601
Ackruti Star, 6th Floor, Central Road, MIDC, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The
applicant no.1 is merely working in the said company on commission basis.
Recovery of three mobile phones, two PAN cards, two Aadhar cards, three
ATM cards, one Ayushman card and a purse has been shown from the
applicant no.1 and recovery of two ATM cards, five cheque-books, two SIM
cards, a laptop, Rs.101700/- and a watch-case containing nine watches has
                                                            BAIL No. 30549 of 2026
                                 2


been shown from a bag. Recovery of a mobile phone, two Aadhar cards, a
voter ID, a PAN card, a driving licence, an ATM card, two SIM cards and
Rs.25,220/- has been shown from the applicant no.2 and recovery of five
ATM cards, one cheque-book, two credit cards, a laptop, five android
mobile and Rs.100000/- has been shown from a bag. The said recovery is
false and planted. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery.
The recovered articles do not connect the applicants with any offence. At
this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicants with the
offence. It is next contended that the applicants are neither members of any
organized crime syndicate nor they acted on behalf of such syndicate.
Criminal history of applicant no.1 has been explained in paragraph-2 of the
supplementary affidavit, whereas applicant no.2 has no criminal antecedents.
The applicants are in jail since 30.12.2025 and if they are released on bail,
they will not misuse the said liberty.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to
the alleged recovery. The recovered articles do not connect the applicants
with any offence. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicants with the offence. Moreover, the applicants have remained
confined for more than eight months 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 are entitled to be enlarged on
bail.

8. Let the applicants- Shomil Modanwal and Abhay Maurya, involved in
the aforesaid case, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond
and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court
concerned subject to the conditions that they:

(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.
                                                                                              BAIL No. 30549 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
                                    at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

                                    September 24, 2026
                                    Manish Kr

                                                                                                (Vivek Varma,J.)




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