High Court · 2025

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 14.11.2024 against holder of Mobile No. 8429561659 and as per FIR, informant, who was employee in Ecavo Agro Daily Private Limited received a Whats App message on his mobile and on Whats App ID profile photo of the Director of the Company was used and on the instructions of the holder of above Mobile No. 8429561659 he transferred Rs. 2,08,00,000/- in different accounts and subsequently it was found that no such instruction was given by his Managing Director.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 319(2), 318(4) BNS and Section 66C and 66D Information Technology Act but subsequently during investigation offence under Section 111(2)(B) BNS has been added.

5. He further submits that applicant was neither holder of Mobile No. 8429561659 nor any money was transferred in his account and he has been made accused in the present matter during investigation merely on the basis of the statements of co-accused persons.

6. He further submits that except statements of co-accused, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

7. He further submits that surprisingly merely on the basis of statements of co-accused persons even charge sheet has been filed against the applicant in the present matter.

8. He further submits that neither there is any cogent nor admissible evidence against the applicant on record which can connect him in the instant crime.

9. He further submits that however, applicant has also challaned for offence under Section 111 BNS, i.e., organized crime but there is no evidence that he is connected with any crime syndicate.

10. He further submtis that even apart from the present case applicant is not having any previous criminal history. He next submits that applicant has no concern with the alleged fraud.

11. He further submits that it is a simple case of fraud and cheating but Investigating Officer during investigation misused the provision of Section 111 BNS and in spite of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence against applicant with regard to offence under Section 111 BNS he also implicated him for the offence of organized crime.

12. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 24.11.2024, i.e., for the last more than three months.

13. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case in which by playing fraud more than Rs. Two Crores have been duped but he could not dispute the fact that except the statements of co-accused persons there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record.

14. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter charge sheet has been filed against the applicant merely on the basis of the statements of co-accused persons.

15. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that there is no cogent evidence which can suggest that applicant is member of any crime syndicate. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history.

16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

17. However, it appears that as per allegation by playing fraud more than Rs. Two Crores have got transferred in different accounts from the informant and it also reflects that during investigation offence under Section 111 BNS has been added but as far as case of applicant is concerned from the record it reflects that during investigation he has been made accused on the basis of the statements of co-accused persons and it appears that except the statements of co-accused persons and confessional statement of applicant, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record and merely on the basis of these evidences even charge sheet has been filed against him.

18. Further, from the record it could not be reflected that applicant was member of any crime syndicate and it also reflects that he is not having any previous criminal history but in spite of that he has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 BNS, therefore, it appears that Investigating Officer of the case conducted the investigation with regard to the applicant in most casual and perfunctory manner.

19. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 24.11.2024, i.e., for the last more than three months.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant-Divyanshu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

23. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

24. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 SKM SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 14.11.2024 against holder of Mobile No. 8429561659 and as per FIR, informant, who was employee in Ecavo Agro Daily Private Limited received a Whats App message on his mobile and on Whats App ID profile photo of the Director of the Company was used and on the instructions of the holder of above Mobile No. 8429561659 he transferred Rs. 2,08,00,000/- in different accounts and subsequently it was found that no such instruction was given by his Managing Director.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 319(2), 318(4) BNS and Section 66C and 66D Information Technology Act but subsequently during investigation offence under Section 111(2)(B) BNS has been added.

5. He further submits that applicant was neither holder of Mobile No. 8429561659 nor any money was transferred in his account and he has been made accused in the present matter during investigation merely on the basis of the statements of co-accused persons.

6. He further submits that except statements of co-accused, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

7. He further submits that surprisingly merely on the basis of statements of co-accused persons even charge sheet has been filed against the applicant in the present matter.

8. He further submits that neither there is any cogent nor admissible evidence against the applicant on record which can connect him in the instant crime.

9. He further submits that however, applicant has also challaned for offence under Section 111 BNS, i.e., organized crime but there is no evidence that he is connected with any crime syndicate.

10. He further submtis that even apart from the present case applicant is not having any previous criminal history. He next submits that applicant has no concern with the alleged fraud.

11. He further submits that it is a simple case of fraud and cheating but Investigating Officer during investigation misused the provision of Section 111 BNS and in spite of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence against applicant with regard to offence under Section 111 BNS he also implicated him for the offence of organized crime.

12. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 24.11.2024, i.e., for the last more than three months.

13. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case in which by playing fraud more than Rs. Two Crores have been duped but he could not dispute the fact that except the statements of co-accused persons there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record.

14. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter charge sheet has been filed against the applicant merely on the basis of the statements of co-accused persons.

15. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that there is no cogent evidence which can suggest that applicant is member of any crime syndicate. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history.

16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

17. However, it appears that as per allegation by playing fraud more than Rs. Two Crores have got transferred in different accounts from the informant and it also reflects that during investigation offence under Section 111 BNS has been added but as far as case of applicant is concerned from the record it reflects that during investigation he has been made accused on the basis of the statements of co-accused persons and it appears that except the statements of co-accused persons and confessional statement of applicant, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record and merely on the basis of these evidences even charge sheet has been filed against him.

18. Further, from the record it could not be reflected that applicant was member of any crime syndicate and it also reflects that he is not having any previous criminal history but in spite of that he has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 BNS, therefore, it appears that Investigating Officer of the case conducted the investigation with regard to the applicant in most casual and perfunctory manner.

19. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 24.11.2024, i.e., for the last more than three months.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant-Divyanshu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

23. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

24. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 SKM SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad