Allahabad High Court

MYCALE DENO ADEXversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 23 February 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court denied bail to the applicant.

Summary

The applicant, Mycale Deno Adex, was arrested in connection with alleged fraud offences under IPC sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and IT Act section 66-D. He filed a second bail application after a first one was rejected, contending that he was not named in the FIR, that the FIR was lodged with an undue delay, and that no money or documents were recovered from him, asserting false implication and seeking parity with co‑accused who had been granted bail. The State argued that the applicant’s complicity was established by the investigation, that the delay in the trial was caused by the applicant and co‑accused who were not cooperating, and that no ground for indulgence existed. The court observed that the case was still pending framing of charge, that co‑accused had evaded proceedings, and that the applicant likewise failed to cooperate. Consequently, the court rejected the second bail application, finding no justification to release the applicant on bail.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the applicant despite the seriousness of the offences and the pending framing of charge.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the applicant’s alleged non‑cooperation justify bail.
Whether parity with co‑accused who obtained bail mandates the release of the applicant.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
Information Technology Act — s. 66-D

Subjects

bail
delay in trial
non‑cooperation
fraud
IPC
IT Act
parity
false implication
foreign national

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42426 of 2025

Mycale Deno Adex
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Sanjay
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.

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

Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the
record.

The instant second bail application on behalf of the applicant has
been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 251 of2024
for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 of
IPC and Section 66-D of I. T. Act, registered at Police Station
Pilkhuwa, District Hapur during the pendnecy of trial. The first bail
application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2025
and the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.06.2025.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has
not been nominated in the FIR. The FIR has been lodged against
three unknown persons with a delay of 2 months and 15 days. No
explanation has been given for the delay in lodging the FIR. No
money or document of any kind has been recovered from the
possession of the accused applicant. The applicant has not received
any money from the informant. The money alleged to be received,
has been received from the Customs Department, Delhi and a
women named Mercy and not the applicant. No offence is made out
against the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated on
the basis of suspicion of the Mukhbir Khas and being a Nigerian
national. It is also argued that the co-accused Peetar alias David has
been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
BAIL No. 42426 of 2025
2

11.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35428 of
2024 and the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the
ground of parity. The co-accused Mercy Kath, who is the wife of the
applicant has also been released on bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the second bail plea
has further submitted that the applicant is incarcerated in jail since
02.06.2024 and charge sheet against the applicant and other co-
accused persons was filed on 24.08.2024 and cognizance has been
taken by the Court concerned on 28.07.2024. Thereafter, the case
was fixed for framing of charge but till today the charges have not
been framed against the applicant as is evident from the order sheet
of the proceedings brought on record by way of supplementary
affidavit. It has been argued that the trial is unnecessarily being
delayed and hence the applicant be released on bail.

Per contra, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA has vehemently
opposed the second bail plea by submitting that complicity of the
applicant on the commission of the crime stands established from the
materials collected during the investigation and the delay in the trial is
attributable to the applicant and the co-accused persons and in such
view of the matter no indulgence is warranted from this Court. The
bail plea be rejected outright.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also
perused the record as also the order sheet of the proceedings
brought on record. The applicant along with the co-accused persons
has been accused of defrauding innocent Indian citizens by
befriending them and posing as Nigerian National coming to visit
India and bringing expensive gifts and foreign currency and them
duping them of huge money in the name of custom fee etc. for
clearing the gift item and currency by posing as Custom Officials. In
the instant case, a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- is alleged to have been
fraudulently obtained from the first informant and fake receipt of the
said amount issued in the name of Custom Department, Delhi.

As regard the delay in trial the court finds that cognizance of the
charge sheet by the court concerned was taken on 28.07.2024 co-
accused Mercy Kath was released on bail from the police station
BAIL No. 42426 of 2025
3

itself. Co-accused Peetar @ David has been granted bail by Co-
ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 11.04.2025. The order
sheet of the proceedings reveal that the case is pending for framing
of charge. However, the co-accused Mercy (wife of applicant) has
been evading the proceedings and not appearing in the case despite
NBW issued against her since 24.09.2024. She has travelled to
Allahabad to swear the affidavit of the bail application and
supplementary affidavit but is not appearing in the case before the
trial court. Likewise, the Co-accused Peetar @ David after his release
has been avoiding the proceedings. The applicant and other co-
accused persons are not cooperating in the trial. In such view of the
matter the Court is not inclined to released the applicant on bail.

The second bail application of the applicant is, accordingly, rejected.

February 24, 2026
pks
(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
PAWAN KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…