Allahabad High Court
MOHD RAJAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail until the charge‑sheet is filed under Section 193 BNSS.
Summary
The applicant, Mohd Raja, filed an anticipatory bail application under CrPC Section 482 in anticipation of arrest in a case involving alleged offences under sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352 and 351(3) of the BNSS. He contended that the FIR falsely implicated him, alleging that the co‑accused Altamash alone was responsible for the alleged cyber‑fraud related activities. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, without delving into the merits, considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the applicant’s antecedents and the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench precedent in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (2020). It granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond, sureties and a set of conditions, including cooperation with police, non‑tampering with evidence, and restrictions on travel. The bail remains in force until the charge‑sheet is filed under Section 193 of the BNSS, and any breach of conditions may lead to its cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under CrPC Section 482 given the alleged false implication and the seriousness of the offences.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s precedent in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (2020) mandates granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- CrPC Section 482
- false implication
- cyber fraud
- Uttar Pradesh
- conditions of bail
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 3490 of 2026
Mohd Raja
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Syed Mohammad Abbas Husain
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Husain, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri DPS Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and perused the
record.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in
anticipation of his arrest in Case Crime No. 898 of 2025, under Sections
318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352 and 351(3) of B.N.S., Police Station-
Lisadigate, District- Meerut.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that, upon bare perusal
of the FIR, it is clear that the allegation is against the co-accused Altamash,
though the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case
merely because co-accused Altamash informed the first informant that the
present applicant is also his accomplice in opening accounts of different
persons so that such accounts may be used to transfer money obtained
through cyber fraud; it is further submitted that there is no allegation against
the applicant that the account of the first informant has been used by him to
transfer any money obtained through cyber fraud; the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and no case is made out against him;
the applicant has explained the criminal history of four cases, which are
petty in nature.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
5. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and
considering the nature of accusations, gravity of offence and antecedents of
applicants, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to get
NABAIL No. 3490 of 2026
2
anticipatory bail till submission of charge sheet under Section 193 BNSS as
per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicant Mohd Raja involved in the aforesaid
crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer
concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;
(ii) 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;
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court;
(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by
intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation.
(v) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of
any crime after being released on bail.
(vi) At the time of releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail, after
verification, the concerned Investigating Officer shall also record the
Aadhaar number, WhatsApp number, e-mail ID, and mobile number of the
applicant, and the same shall be uploaded on CCTNS, as per Rule 8 of the
Uttar Pradesh Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules,
2026.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of anticipatory bail.
8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, application stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
April 20, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…