Allahabad High Court

SHANOOversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 27 January 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The bail application is allowed, and the applicant is released on bail subject to conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 by Shanoo, who was arrested in connection with a cyber‑fraud case involving alleged creation of a fraudulent UPI account and misappropriation of Rs.5,07,029. The FIR alleged that Shanoo, along with a co‑accused, used a photocopy of Suresh Kumar’s Aadhaar to open the account and withdraw funds, while the defence claimed the applicant was falsely implicated and that the mobile phone was never left in the car as alleged. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the BNS and Sections 66‑C, 66‑D of the Information Technology Act, but acknowledged the applicant’s clean record. The Court noted that the charge‑sheet had been filed, custodial interrogation was no longer required, and there was a prima facie case but also a possibility of false implication. Balancing the severity of the alleged crimes against the applicant’s lack of prior convictions and the risk of witness tampering, the Court decided to grant bail with strict conditions. Accordingly, Shanoo was released on bail upon execution of a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting evidence tampering, intimidation of witnesses, and further criminal activity.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for offences under the BNS and the Information Technology Act.
Whether the prima facie evidence and seriousness of the alleged cyber‑fraud justify denial of bail.
Whether there is a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released on bail.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
BNSS, 2023 — s. 483
Information Technology Act — s. 66-C, 66-D

Subjects

bail
cybercrime
UPI fraud
Information Technology Act
Section 66-C
Section 66-D
criminal procedure
witness tampering
presumption of innocence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35325 of 2025

Shanoo
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Shrivastava, Saurabh Mishra,
Vineet Singh Parmar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Arimardan Yadav, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, at the
instance of the applicant Shanoo, has been filed seeking the enlargement
on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2025, under Sections 318 (4), 319 (2),
338, 336 (3), 340 (2) of the BNS and Section 66-C, 66-D of the
Information Technology Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District
Rampur, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail
application of the applicant before the Court below was rejected by the
learned Sessions Judge, Rampur vide order dated 21.8.2025 and the
applicant is languishing in jail since 28.7.2025.

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case
crime number for ulterior motives. The FIR giving rise to the instant case
crime number has been lodged with the allegation that one Suresh
(brother-in-law of the informant) had booked the car of the applicant for
going to Muzaffar Nagar and return to Rampur. Suresh is alleged to have
left his mobile phone in the car which fact was acknowledged by the
applicant who assured to return the same, but did not return the same. The
said mobile is stated to have been misused by the applicant to open an
UPI account in the name of Suresh and syphon out a sum of Rs.5,07,029/-
from the SBI main branch bank A/c No. 20381731038 between 7.6.2025
and 22.6.2025. It was stated in the FIR that Suresh had no UPI account
and that the mobile number was linked with the bank account and Aadhar
card.
BAIL No. 35325 of 2025
2

It has been argued that the FIR version is preposterous and nothing was
left by the said Suresh in the car. In fact, a hot talk took place between
Suresh and the applicant regarding the monetary charges for the entire trip
and the applicant was falsely implicated. The FIR is delayed by 05
months. No complaint was lodged regarding the missing phone, blocking
the SIM or intimation to the bank about possible misuse. The applicant
has clean antecedents and undertakes to co-operate in the trial and not
misuse the liberty of bail, if released on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed
for.

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the bail plea by submitting that the
applicant along with co-accused Rezu @ Monu created an UPI account of
Suresh Kumar using a photocopy of Suresh Kumar’s Aadhar card
available on the mobile of Suresh Kumar and withdrew a sum of
Rs.5,07,029/- from his bank account between 7.6.2025 and 22.6.2025.
Accounts were transferred into various accounts and purchases were
made. Charge sheet has already been filed against the applicant and his
complicity in the commission of the crime is established. However,
learned AGA could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal
history.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

From the perusal of the records, it is borne out that charge sheet against
the applicant has already been filed and as such, custodial interrogation of
the applicant is no longer required. The records further reveal that Suresh
in his statement has admitted to have obtained another SIM of the same
number on 16.6.2025. The fraudulent transactions attributed to the
applicant are alleged between 7.6.2025 to 22.6.2025. Prima facie, the
earlier SIM is made inoperative on the issue of fresh SIM. The false
implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out.

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations,
severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting
evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima
facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made
out.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Shanno, involved in above mentioned case crime
number be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to the following conditions:
BAIL No. 35325 of 2025
3

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and
co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
trial court, unless her personal appearance is exempted through counsel by
the court concerned.

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
will be at liberty to proceed to cancel her bail.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
January 28, 2026
Ravi / Deepak

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…