Allahabad High Court
SAIDAN ANSARIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
Bail was granted to the accused without touching the merits of the case.
Summary
The accused, Saidan Ansari, applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 378 of 2026) under Sections 318(4), 317(4) of the IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act, alleging that his bank account was misused by a villager named Shahid who paid a nominal fee for its use. He contended that he is a victim of cyber fraud, is illiterate, has no prior criminal record, and has been cooperating with the investigation since his arrest on 07‑08‑2026. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual matrix presented by the applicant. The Court, after considering the submissions and the supplementary affidavit, granted bail without addressing the merits of the case, relying on Supreme Court precedents on bail policy. The bail was conditioned on a personal bond and two sureties, with a direction to continue cooperating with the judicial process.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 318(4), 317(4) IPC and Section 66D IT Act given the circumstances of alleged victimhood and cooperation.
- Whether the accused's lack of prior criminal history and illiteracy warrant bail.
- Whether the use of the accused's bank account by a third party affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 317(4), 318(4)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66D
Subjects
- bail
- cyber fraud
- IT Act
- Section 66D
- Indian Penal Code
- victim
- cooperation with investigation
- illiteracy
- no prior record
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32610 of 2026
Saidan Ansari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Nasim Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Sri Mohd. Nasim Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant hands up
the supplementary affidavit in support of the bail application. The same is
taken on record.
1A. Heard Sri Ahmad & Sri Saziya Praveen, learned counsel for the
accused-applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
1B. The bail application is nominated to this Court in order dated
17.09.2026 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the accused-applicant
Saidan Ansari to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 378 of 2026,
under Sections 318(4), 317(4) BNS and Section 66D I.T. Act, P.S.-
Bhadohi, District- Bhadohi, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-applicant that the
accused-applicant has been named in F.I.R. dated 06.08.2026 lodged by
the police against five persons including the accused-applicant in whose
bank account, the amount of cyber fraud is credited. Further contended
that a person named Shahid, who is of the same village, has asked the
applicant for use of his account and has paid Rs.500/- for the same. It is
because of Shahid that the accused-applicant has given his account
number for the transaction of Rs.99 thousand, which was returned to
Shahid on account of payment of Rs.500/-. It is the accused-applicant,
who is a victim in this case, as his account is used. He is illiterate and in
BAIL No. 32610 of 2026
2
the business of weaving of carpets. The investigation is continuing. He is
cooperating in the investigation. The applicant has no criminal history.
The applicant is in jail since 07.08.2026 and hence, the applicant seeks to
be released on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considered that the account of accused-applicant has been used by one
Shahid, as is disclosed in the supplementary affidavit filed today.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
8. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 24, 2026
Shivangi
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANGI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…