Allahabad High Court
MANISH PANDEYversusSTATE 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
Manish Pandey applied for anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNSS Act and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, based on nine suspicious transactions dated 06.05.2024. The FIR was lodged nearly two years after the transactions, and the applicant claimed he had promptly informed his bank and cooperated with investigators. The State opposed the bail, but the Court, without delving into the merits, considered the gravity of the accusations, the delay in filing the FIR, and the applicant’s antecedents. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court granted anticipatory bail until a charge‑sheet is filed under Section 193 BNSS, subject to several conditions. The bail order includes personal bond, sureties, and mandatory compliance with verification and electronic recording requirements. The application was disposed of with the grant of anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the nature and gravity of the offences alleged under BNSS and the IT Act
- Whether the delay of two years in lodging the FIR and the applicant’s cooperation affect the bail decision
- Whether the conditions imposed are sufficient to safeguard the investigation
Legislation cited
- BNSS Act — s. 193, 318(4), 3(5)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(D)
- Uttar Pradesh Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules, 2026 — s. Rule 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- BNSS Act
- Information Technology Act
- delay in FIR
- bail conditions
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 3493 of 2026
Manish Pandey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhananjai Rai, Vibhu Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Dhananjai Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Roshan
Kumar Singh, 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. 23 of 2026, under Sections
318(4) and 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 66(D) of Information Technology
(I.T.) Act, Police Station- Cyber Crime, District- Prayagraj.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR in question
has been lodged merely on the basis of nine transactions on 06.05.2024 in
the account of PRIMOZ Health Care, which is a proprietorship concern of
the applicant, and there is no transaction either prior or subsequent to the
said date; it is further submitted that, upon coming to know of the aforesaid
dubious transactions, the applicant immediately informed ICICI Bank, where
his account is maintained, on 07.05.2024; however, the FIR in question has
been lodged after almost two years of the said transactions; it is also
submitted that the applicant has been cooperating during the investigation.
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
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.
NABAIL No. 3493 of 2026
2
6. In the event of arrest, the applicant Manish Pandey 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…