Allahabad High Court
VINAY SAHANIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted as the applicant made out a prima facie case for bail.
Summary
Vinay Sahani applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 711 of 2026) where he was charged under IPC sections 318(4), 351(3), 352, 61(2) and IT Act sections 66(C) and 66(D). The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that no money was transferred to his account, and that the FIR lacked a date and time of the alleged offence. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the applicant's submissions. The court, after examining the record, found that prima facie there was no evidence of money transfer and that the applicant had no prior criminal history, concluding that he had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions of non‑tampering with evidence and appearance before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the serious charges under the IPC and IT Act
- Whether the lack of evidence of money transfer and absence of specific details in the FIR justify granting bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318, 351, 352, 61
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66C, 66D
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC
- IT Act
- prima facie
- sureties
- false implication
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33279 of 2026
Vinay Sahani
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deeksha Gupta, Siddharth Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.16 out of 61)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.711 of 2026, under Sections
318(4), 351(3), 352, 61(2) BNS and Section 66(C) & 66(D) of I.T. Act,
Police Station Gulriha, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
nowhere specified as to what money was transferred to the account of the
applicant. The applicant has simply been assigned the role of having
introduced the informant to the co-accused person at the time of opening of
his account. There is no date and time of offence also mentioned in the
FIR. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 27.8.2026. He
undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
BAIL No. 33279 of 2026
2
consideration the fact that no amount has been transferred to the account of
the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case
for bail. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Vinay Sahani, be released on bail in the
aforementioned case crime 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.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 18, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…