Allahabad High Court
PRASHANT CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court allowed the bail application, granting bail to the applicant.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Prashant Chauhan, who was arrested in a cyber‑fraud case (Crime No. 19 of 2024) involving alleged siphoning of Rs 57,89,776. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that his name appeared only in the confessional statement of co‑accused Rajendra Sharma, and that he had not received any of the fraud proceeds nor possessed a criminal record. The prosecution, represented by the first informant and the A.G.A., argued that the applicant was the mastermind of the fraud and that the allegations were serious. The court noted the applicant’s lack of prior convictions, the absence of any money in his account, and the prolonged pre‑trial detention, and, without expressing a view on the merits, found the case suitable for bail. Accordingly, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties and several conditions aimed at preventing witness tampering and ensuring the applicant’s presence at trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in view of the seriousness of the alleged cyber‑fraud offences.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged role as mastermind and the amount allegedly siphoned off preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and lack of receipt of fraud proceeds justify bail despite the prosecution’s objections.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 337, 338, 483
- Income Tax Act, 2008 (Amended) — s. 66D
Subjects
- bail
- cyber fraud
- false implication
- Section 483
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Income Tax Act
- pre‑trial detention
- witness tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40585 of 2025
Prashant Chauhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anoop Singh, Gaurav Singh Chauhan,
Mahendra Nath Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Atul Kumar Pandey, G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Mahendra Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Atul Kumar Pandey, learned cousnel for the first informant, Sri B.P.
Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer
to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 19 of 2024 under Sections 318(4),
337, 338 BNS and 66D I.T. Act, 2008 (Amended) registered at Police
Station Cyber Crime, District Pilibhit during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case and the FIR has been lodged against
unknown. It is further submitted that name of the applicant has surfaced
during investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Rajendra
Sharma @ Rajan who is said to have received Rs. 30,00,000/- in his bank
account whereas the applicant has not received any amount in his bank
account. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and
and he has been languishing in jail since 05.9.2025. The applicant
undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been
pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is
no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant as well as
learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and
submit that applicant is the mastermind of the entire fraudulent transaction
BAIL No. 40585 of 2025
2
and the allegations against him are very serious. The first informant was put
in digital arrest and an amount of Rs. 57,89,776/- is said to have been
siphoned off from his account.
5. FIR has been lodged against unknown as per which, first informant is said
to have been put in digital arrest by some unknown person and huge amount
of Rs. 57,89,776/- is said to have been siphoned off from his account by way
of cyber fraud. Name of the applicant has surfaced during investigation in
the confessional statement of arrested co-accused Rajendra Sharma @ Rajan
who is said to have received Rs. 30,00,000/- in his bank account whereas
applicant has not received any amount in his bank account. Applicant has no
criminal history and and he has been languishing in jail since 05.9.2025. Bail
application of co-accused Rajendra Sharma @ Rajan has been rejected by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as he is said to have received Rs.
30,00,000/- in his bank account whereas case of the applicant stands on a
different footing as he has not received any amount arising out of the
fraudulent transaction in his bank account.
6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find
it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.
7. Let the applicant Prashant Chauhan involved in the aforesaid case crime
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with
two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat,
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in the trial court.
BAIL No. 40585 of 2025
3
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free
to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.
May 14, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…