Allahabad High Court
KARNAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the FIR was belated, evidence is insufficient, and no reasonable apprehension of tampering or intimidation exists.
Summary
Karnal Singh applied for bail in a cyber‑crime case (Crime No. 4 of 2025) under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 3(5), 238, 111(2)b of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 66C, 66D of the Information Technology Act. The FIR was lodged on 9 January 2025 despite the alleged illicit transactions beginning on 26 October 2024, and the applicant’s name does not appear in the FIR; the only allegation against him is that he had a telephonic conversation with co‑accused Pradeep Singh. The prosecution highlighted the applicant’s prior criminal history, while the defence argued that the delayed FIR and lack of substantive evidence make the case against him weak. The Court found the FIR belated, noted the absence of any material linking the applicant to the offence, and observed no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court granted bail, subject to standard conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case for denial of bail.
- Whether a mere telephonic conversation with a co‑accused constitutes sufficient grounds to deny bail.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history warrants refusal of bail.
- Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay if bail is granted.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 111(2)b, 238, 318(4), 319(2), 3(5)
- Information Technology Act (as amended) — s. 66C, 66D
Subjects
- bail
- cyber crime
- Information Technology Act
- delay in FIR
- insufficient evidence
- prior criminal history
- telephonic conversation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44170 of
2025
Karnal Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avinash Mani Tripathi, Jay
Singh Yadav, Navnish Singh,
Ram Kailash Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jitendra Kumar Pandey,
Pankaj Dwivedi
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar
Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State, and learned counsel
appearing for the informant.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to
enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 4 of 2025, under
Sections 318(4), 319(2), 3(5), 238, 111(2)b B.N.S., 66C, 66D
Information Technology Amendment Act, Police Station Cyber
Crime, District Prayagraj during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
was not named in the first information report and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The first alleged transaction from
the bank account of the informant took place on 26.10.2024.
Thereafter, multiple transactions had taken place. However, the
first information report was lodged on 09.01.2025. Inordinate
delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. It is next contended that during the course of
investigation, on the basis of CCTV footage, the name of one
Pradeep Singh surfaced. The only allegation against the applicant
BAIL No. 44170 of 2025
2
is that he was in telephonic conversation with co-accused Pradeep
Singh. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the
applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit
transactions. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to
link the applicant with the offence. Mere telephonic conversation,
in absence of any substantive material, is insufficient to establish
complicity. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that
of other co-accused. The applicant is in jail since 18.10.2025 and
if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have
opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the
aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned A.G.A. submits
that the applicant has criminal history of two cases, details
whereof have been mentioned in Paragraph-4 of the counter
affidavit.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal
of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first
information report has been lodged belatedly. The applicant was
not named in the first information report. During the course of
investigation, on the basis of CCTV footage, the name of one
Pradeep Singh surfaced. The only allegation against the applicant
is that he was in telephonic conversation with co-accused Pradeep
Singh. Mere telephonic conversation, in absence of any
substantive material, is insufficient to establish complicity.
Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than five
months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope
of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Karnal Singh, 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 Court
concerned subject to the conditions that he:
BAIL No. 44170 of 2025
3
(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.
April 2, 2026
SKT/-
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…