AMAN AGARWALversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42970 of 2025

Aman Agarwal
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                                .....Opposite

                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)             :     Jitendra Rana, Rajrshi Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)        :     G.A.

Along with :
1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 949 of 2026:
   Aftab Alam
                                Versus
   State of U.P.
2. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44942 of 2025:
   Jagjeet Singh
                                Versus
   State of U.P.


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

1. Heard Shri Rajrshi Gupta alongwith Shri Jitendra Rana, learned
counsels of the applicants, Shri Vijendra Kumar learned AGA for the
state and perused the records.

2. All the aforesaid bail applications arise out of same Case Crime
Number therefore the same are being decided by a common order.

3. All the aforesaid bail applications on behalf of the applicants, namely
Aman Agarwal, Aftab Alam and Jageet Singh, have been filed seeking
enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 120 of 2025, under Sections 318
(4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2), 3 (5) BNS and 66 D of I.T. Act, Police Station-
Cyber Crime, District Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial before the
Court below. The bail applications of the applicants in the Court below
were rejected by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Ghaziabad vide
                                                       BAIL No. 42970 of 2025
                               2


orders dated 13.10.2025 and the applicants are languishing in jail
27.06.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants have vehemently contended that the
applicants are entirely innocent and have been falsely implicated in this
very case for ulterior motive. The First Information Report giving rise to
the Case Crime number in question was lodged nominating the applicants
and 7 other persons with the allegation that the applicants along with
other co-accused persons describing themselves as representatives of
various companies commit cyber fraud in the name of selling Insurance
Policies to people and with the help of computers create fake and forged
Insurance Policies, receipts, and fraudulently transfer the monies collected
as premium into various bank accounts and later withdraw the money
through ATMs. On an information received from police Informer a raid
was conducted at the place informed (under the Flyover of Pratap Bihar,
Police Station Area, Vijaynagar) and 26 Mobile Phones, 4 Cheque Books,
2 Cheques, 3 pass books, 14 ATM Cards, 4 Sim Cards, 2 Four wheeler
Cars and Rs. 1,98,000/-were recovered from 7 accused persons (including
the applicants) who were arrested from the spot. Applicant, Aman
Agarwal, alleged to be on the driving seat of the vehicle bearing
Registration No. UP-14-GN-5597 and several incriminating materials
mentioned in the First Information Report was recovered from his
possession. Applicant Aftab Alam, and Jagjeet Singh, were alleged to be
sitting in the alleged vehicle and several other incriminating materials,
mentioned in the First Information Report were recovered from their
possession also. It has been argued that that the recovery made from the
applicants are false and fabricated as there is no independent witness to
the said recovery. It is also argued that the applicants were not arrested
from the spot and they have been arrested from different places. It has
been further argued that the applicant Aman Agarwal was arrested from
his house on 23.06.2025 much prior to the date of incident which is
alleged to have taken place on 27.06.2025. Information of the illegal
detention on 23.06.2025 is stated to have been sent to the District
Magistrate, Ghaziabad, by his brother. It is also argued that the applicants
have not committed any cyber fraud as alleged. Applicant Aman Agrawal
has criminal antecedent of one case being Case Crime No. 40 of 2025
                                                        BAIL No. 42970 of 2025
                               3


under Section 318 (4), 61 (2) BNS in which he is on bail. Applicants,
Aftab Alam and Jagjeet Singh have no criminal antecedents.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has next argued that besides the
confessional statement of the applicants there is no corroborative
evidence to connect the applicants with the crime. The Whatsapp chats
made from the mobile phones of the applicants has no evidentiary value
in the absence of certification under Section 63 of the Evidence Act.
Charge sheet against the applicants has already been filed on 14.09.2025
and as such investigation against the applicants is complete and their
custodial interrogation is no longer required.

6. Lastly it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the
police while conducting the search and seizure has not followed the
mandate of Section 105 BNSS which is mandatory rendering the entire
recovery illegal. It is argued that Section 105 BNSS prescribes the process
of videography regarding search of a place or taking possession of any
property or articles including the preparation of list of all seized to
prevent the plantation of false recovery by certain police officials and also
create legal material for the fair trial. Likewise, Rule 18 of the Uttar
Pradesh Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Rules 2024 provides the procedure of
audio video recording of search of any place or taking possession of any
property. Rule 18 further provides that audio video recording or searching
any person place or taking possession of any property or article or
material including preparation of list of articles seized as well as
signatures of witness on such list shall be done immediately through E-
Sakshya App or other audio video electronic means which includes
mobile phone. It is thus sought to be argued that the compliance of
Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Rules 2024 is mandatory and failure to comply would render the
entire search and seizure illegal. Consequently the applicants would stand
entitled for bail. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of coordinate
Bench in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40989 of 2025, Shadab vs.
State of U.P.

7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail plea by
submitting that the applicants were apprehended along with other co-
                                                       BAIL No. 42970 of 2025
                               4


accused persons and from their possession 2 four wheelers having
registration No. UP 14 GN 5597 and UK14 L2828, 26 mobile phones, 6
Cheque Books, 3 Pass Books, 14 ATM Cards, 4 Sim Cards and from the
Applicant Aman Agrawal alone 8 Mobile Phones, 9 ATM cards of
Several Banks, one Airtel Sim and Rs. 1,98,000/- relating to fraud policy
was recovered. It is further submitted that the applicants were arrested
from the spot with incriminating articles which establish the involvement
of the applicants in the crime alleged. From the INFinix Mobile, using
Mobile No. 7409486010 several Whatsapp chats were found which
contained details of policy Holders, their Aadhar Cards, Bank Account
details, details of Bank transactions, shared with other numbers,
fraudulent Insurance Policies, receipts etc. were recovered and as such no
case for bail can be said to have been made out and the applications
warrant outright rejection.

8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have given my due
consideration to the rival contentions. Admittedly the applicants were
apprehended from the spot and recoveries of incriminating articles have
been made from the possession of the applicants and co-accused persons.
The recovery of the incriminating materials from the possession of the
applicants have not been explained and the only stand taken is that
compliance of Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Rules, 2024 has not been made rendering the
entire search and seizure illegal and inadmissible.

9. The pith and substances of the submission of learned counsel for the
applicants is that the entire search and seizure operation against the
applicants and other co-accused is illegal being in clear violation of
Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 of the U.P. Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Rules, 2024 and as such cannot be relied upon against the applicants and
co-accused persons.

10. In the opinion of the Court the entire submission of learned counsel
for the applicants cannot be accepted in its entirety. Though the search
and seizure may be illegal but the incriminating material recovered cannot
be said to be inadmissible. The seizure of the articles cannot be said to be
vitiated. I am fortified in my view by a recent decision of the Apex Court
                                                        BAIL No. 42970 of 2025
                               5


rendered in Case of Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg Vs. State of Haryana and
others reported in 2026 INSC 176, wherein, it has been held that while
the search may be illegal, the materials or evidence gathered or collected
in the course of such search can still be acted or relied upon subject to the
rule of relevancy and test of admissibility. In Radha Kishan vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1963 SC 822) the three judges Bench of the Apex
Court in the context of search operation in the premises under Section 103
and 165 of the old Criminal Procedure Code, which accidentally led to a
large numbers of letters and postcards being recovered held that even if it
is assumed that the search was illegal, the seizure of the articles is not
vitiated. Then again a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Pooran
Mal vs. Director of Inspector (Investigation), New Delhi, reported in
1974 (1) SCC 345 while examining a challenge to search and seizure of
certain premises under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the
ground that the authorization for the search as also the search and seizure
were illegal, after referring to various provisions of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 held that unless there is an express or necessarily implied
prohibition in law evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure
is not liable to be shut out.

11. In the case at hand the evidence/ material recovered from the
possession of the applicants and other co-accused persons has some
relevance to the offence alleged and cannot be discarded merely on the
ground that there is non compliance of Section 105 BNSS or Rule 18 of
the U.P. Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Rules, 2024. Prima facie the Court is
of the opinion that the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail at
this stage.

12. This Court finds that in India, the rapid advancement of technology
and the widespread adoption of digital infrastructure have led to a
significant rise in cyber-crimes including phishing scams, ransomware
attacks, cyber-stalking and data breaches. Initiatives like Digital India
have accelerated the country's' digital transformation, but they have also
exposed vulnerabilities that cyber-criminals exploit.

13. Cyber-crime has been affecting the people across the nation,
irrespective of religion, region, education or class. Newspapers,
                                                                                            BAIL No. 42970 of 2025
                                                                   6


                                    Magazines, You Tube Channels and Social Media are brimming with
                                    ordeals of an uncountable number of innocent victim of the cyber-crime,
                                    who are defrauded of their hard earned money. Such cyber-crimes are
                                    rampant in our society, and must be curbed. Cyber-crime in our country is
                                    like a silent virus stealthy, disruptive, and costing society more than just
                                    money, but trust, security and progress.

                                    14. In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to release the applicants
                                    on bail. All the aforesaid bail applications are, accordingly, rejected.



                                                                                      (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
                                    February 23, 2026
                                    Deepak/




Digitally signed by :-
DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad