Allahabad High Court
SURAJversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
Suraj, a licensed Airtel Point of Sale (POS) agent, was arrested in connection with a cyber‑crime case (Crime No. 0042 of 2026) alleging offences under Sections 308(2), 318(4), 319(2), 61(2) of the BNS Act and Sections 66 and 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated, had no involvement in the alleged transactions, and no proceeds of the crime entered his bank account. The applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in custody since 18‑May‑2026. The court examined the seriousness of the charges, the period of incarceration already served, and the applicant’s claim of innocence. Finding no risk of evidence tampering or flight, the court granted bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions, without prejudice to the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the gravity of the alleged cyber‑offences under the BNS Act and the IT (Amendment) Act.
- Whether the applicant's claim of false implication and lack of monetary benefit justify the grant of bail.
- Whether the period of pre‑trial detention already served warrants release on bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 308(2), 318(4), 319(2), 61(2)
- Information Technology (Amendment) Act — s. 66, 66D
Subjects
- bail
- cyber crime
- Information Technology Act
- BNS Act
- false implication
- POS agent
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32513 of 2026
Suraj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saket Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 26 out of 98)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Saket Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S.
Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0042 of 2026, under Sections
308(2), 318(4), 319(2), 61(2) of BNS and Sections 66, 66D of I.T.
Amendment Act, Police Station - Cyber Crime Commissionerate, District -
Gautam Buddha Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant was
merely operating as an authorized Airtel Point of Sale (POS) agent and has
no nexus with the alleged offence as splayed out in the FIR. It is further
pressed that no monetary transactions or proceeds of the crime have been
transferred to the applicant's bank account. Furthermore, the applicant has no
prior criminal history and has been languishing in jail since 18.05.2026.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of the
accusation, the severity of the punishment prescribed, and also taking into
account the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant, this
Court prima facie finds it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Suraj, be
BAIL No. 32513 of 2026
2
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the
satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with
the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses
and shall appear before the trial court as required.
7. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
September 14, 2026
Siddhant
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…