Allahabad High Court

SANJAY BOBBY DESHWALversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: AVNISH SAXENA

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to a personal bond and strict conditions.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjay Bobby Deshwal under Section 482 of the CrPC in a cyber‑fraud case (Crime No. 19 of 2024). The FIR alleged that the applicant, a landlord, was linked to a fraudulent transaction involving Rs. 57,89,776 transferred to multiple bank accounts, though he claimed the money flow was merely a rental payment. The applicant was already on bail for the same offence, had no prior criminal record, and pledged cooperation with the investigation. The State opposed bail, arguing the applicant’s involvement and citing the rejection of bail for co‑accused. Relying on Supreme Court precedents governing anticipatory bail, the court held that the applicant posed a low flight risk, had already been granted bail, and was willing to comply with conditions, and therefore granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and specific undertakings.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC in view of the nature and gravity of the alleged cyber‑fraud.
Whether the applicant’s prior bail and lack of criminal antecedent mitigate the risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing.
Whether the rental transaction alleged by the applicant negates his alleged participation in the fraud.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 308(2), 319(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
cyber crime
fraud
bail conditions
flight risk
criminal antecedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 4277 of 2026

Sanjay Bobby Deshwal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Yadav, Shivam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Atul Kumar Pandey, G.A.

Court No. - 71
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Sri
Atul Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for
State and perused the record.

2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by applicant to
grant anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 19 of 2024, under Sections
308(2), 319(2) BNS, P.S.- Cyber Crime, District- Pilibhit.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for accused-applicant that the F.I.R.
is lodged on 21.12.2024 for the incident carried out between 09.08.2024
to 22.08.2024 against the anonymous persons by the informant regarding
digital arrest and taking of Rs. 57,89,776/- by playing fraud from the
informant. Further submits that the applicant has no criminal history.
During investigation, he was on bail. The charge sheet is submitted.
Further submits that the trail of investigation is such that the amount,
which was taken by the informant was transferred to five accounts in
three banks, namely, IndusInd Bank, Federal Bank and SBI Bank,
respectively. The accused-applicant is a landlord, where the firm of RTTS
is a tenant. Rajendra Sharma and Vikash Verma, who are the accused in
the present case, has been stated to be linked to the accused-applicant.
Further submits that the transaction which was between Rajendra Sharma
and the accused-applicant was a rental transaction and has nothing to do
with the alleged cheating carried out with the informant. Further submits
that the applicant was already on bail in order dated 26.09.2025 passed by
NABAIL No. 4277 of 2026
2

the court of Sessions Judge Pilibhit. After the submission of the charge
sheet, two sections 308(2) and 319(2) BNS has been added. The applicant
has moved the anticipatory bail before the trial court, but his bail
application was rejected. The applicant wants to join the trial, but
apprehending arrest and seeks anticipatory bail.

4. Countering the argument of learned counsel for the applicant, learned
counsel for the informant submits that the trail of money reached to the
applicant. The bail application of co-accused has already been rejected by
the coordinate Bench of this Court. He submits that the applicant has a
role and his bail application deserves to be rejected.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant.

6. The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three
insightful judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh
Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565,
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it is
consistently held by Hon'ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory
bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to
evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and
gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or
exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of
the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the
accused and flight risk.

7. This Court while considering that the accused-applicant is on bail
during the investigation. He claimed to be the landlord and the transaction
between the co-accused and applicant was the rental transaction. In
grievous section, the applicant was already granted bail and further
considering the gravity of accusation and apprehension of arrest in the
case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating
with the investigation and trial, is of considered view to grant anticipatory
bail.
NABAIL No. 4277 of 2026
3

8. The applicant- Sanjay Bobby Deshwal involved in the aforesaid case
crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer, as the
case may be within 30 days from the date of this order and shall be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
with following conditions :-

(i) 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 or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall
not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the
witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose
of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed
as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be
absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of
evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

(Avnish Saxena,J.)
May 5, 2026
Shivangi

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANGI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…