Allahabad High Court

RAHUL MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail as there is no evidence linking him to the offence and no risk of tampering or intimidation.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rahul Mishra in a cyber‑crime case (Criminal No. 0031 of 2026) under IPC sections 317(2), 317(5), 318(4) and 111(2). The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, was falsely implicated based on an informer’s tip, and that there was no independent or corroborative evidence linking him to the alleged recovery of mobile phones and money. The State opposed bail but could not produce evidence to counter these claims. The Court found that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody for over two months, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, pressurising witnesses, and mandating court appearances.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR and lacks corroborative evidence.
Whether there is a risk of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Whether continued detention is justified given the length of pre‑trial custody and lack of substantive proof.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 111(2), 317(2), 317(5), 318(4)

Subjects

bail
false implication
lack of evidence
IPC sections 317, 318, 111
cyber crime
pre‑trial detention
court conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33305 of 2026

Rahul Mishra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Apurva Prakash Tiwari, Prabhat
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, S.S. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0031 of 2026, under Sections 317(2),
317(5), 318(4) and 111(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Cyber Crime, District-
Bareilly during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the
first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
On the basis of the information furnished by an informer the applicant was
arrested. False recovery of three mobile phones and Rs.1510/- has been
shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged
recovery. No amount relating to the alleged transaction has been credited to
the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any
illicit transaction. The recovered mobile phones and Indian currency do not
link the applicant with the alleged offence. The applicant is neither a
member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such
syndicate. The applicant is in jail since 14.7.2026 having no criminal
history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 33305 of 2026
2

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first
information report. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery.
At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has
presently remained confined for more than two months and there is no hope
of early conclusion of trial, more so when 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 intimidate the witness, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant, Rahul Mishra involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

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

(Vivek Varma,J.)
September 29, 2026
S.S.

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…