Allahabad High Court
SARFARAJversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail as there is no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence and no reasonable apprehension of tampering or witness intimidation.
Summary
The applicant, Sarfaraj, filed a bail application in a cyber‑crime case (Cr. No. 37 of 2025) alleging that he was not named in the FIR and was only implicated by a co‑accused’s statement, which the court found unreliable. No independent witness or corroborative evidence linked him to the alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 111(4), 317(2) of the IPC and Section 66‑D of the IT Act, and the seized items were his personal belongings. The court noted that a similarly situated co‑accused had already been granted bail and that the applicant had no prior criminal record, having been in custody for nine months. The State could not demonstrate any risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and lacks corroborative evidence, should be granted bail in the pending cyber‑crime trial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 111(4), 317(2), 318(4)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66-D
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Information Technology Act
- false implication
- co‑accused testimony
- lack of corroborative evidence
- no prior criminal record
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34733 of 2026
Sarfaraj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Shekhar
Pandey, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material
available on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 37 of 2025, under Sections 318(4),
111(4), 317(2) B.N.S. and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act,
Police Station- Cyber Crime Azamgarh, District - Azamgarh, during the
pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the
first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Arjun Singh while in
police custody. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is
unreliable. Recovery of two mobile phones and Indian currency of Rs.120/-
has been shown from the applicant. The said articles belong to the applicant
and do not link the applicant with any offence. 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. At this stage, there is
no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The
applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted
on behalf of such syndicate. Identically placed co-accused Vinayak Malviya
has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 6.4.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1718 of 2026. The applicant claims
BAIL No. 34733 of 2026
2
parity. The applicant is in jail since 07.12.2025 having no criminal
antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.
4. Learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
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. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused
Arjun Singh while in police custody. There is no independent witness to the
alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Vinayak Malviya
has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal
antecedents and has remained confined for almost nine months and after
submission of the charge-sheet 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 delay the trial 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 Sarfaraj involved in the aforesaid case be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions
that he:
(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.
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.
September 30, 2026
S.S.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…