High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Nalin Arora, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 142 of 2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(2), 338, 336(2), 340, 61(2)(A) B.N.S. & Section 66D of I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station- Cyber Crime, District- Lucknow. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that only on the basis of the confessional statement, the applicant has been connected with the present matter. He also added that the applicant was arrested after about three months of the alleged incident and there is no corroborative evidence except apart the confessional statement of the co-accused persons. He next submits that in para no. 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is apparent that the main accused is one Nagendra Kumar Abhinandan Pathak and the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of the said accused. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 14.11.2024. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that in a case of cyber crime, the accused cannot be directly connected while corroborating the direct evidence and added that there is ample evidence against the applicant that he was involved in the commission of the offence and design and modus was in the knowledge of all the accused persons. He further submits that the applicant may abscond from the trial proceedings and, thus, he is not entitled for bail. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also supported the version of the counsel for the complainant and submits that the applicant went to Cambodia so as to have the knowledge of handling such kind of offences and the chain of the offence is complete, thus, he is not entitled for bail. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2024 and only on the basis of the confessional statement, the applicant has been connected with the present matter. The applicant was arrested after about three months of the alleged incident and there is no corroborative evidence except apart the confessional statement of the co- accused persons. In para no. 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is apparent that the main accused is Nagendra Kumar Abhinandan Pathak and the role of the present applicant is distinguishable. Further, the charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Pankaj Surela involved in the Let the applicant- aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) 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 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Shravan SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Nalin Arora, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 142 of 2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(2), 338, 336(2), 340, 61(2)(A) B.N.S. & Section 66D of I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station- Cyber Crime, District- Lucknow. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that only on the basis of the confessional statement, the applicant has been connected with the present matter. He also added that the applicant was arrested after about three months of the alleged incident and there is no corroborative evidence except apart the confessional statement of the co-accused persons. He next submits that in para no. 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is apparent that the main accused is one Nagendra Kumar Abhinandan Pathak and the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of the said accused. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 14.11.2024. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that in a case of cyber crime, the accused cannot be directly connected while corroborating the direct evidence and added that there is ample evidence against the applicant that he was involved in the commission of the offence and design and modus was in the knowledge of all the accused persons. He further submits that the applicant may abscond from the trial proceedings and, thus, he is not entitled for bail. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also supported the version of the counsel for the complainant and submits that the applicant went to Cambodia so as to have the knowledge of handling such kind of offences and the chain of the offence is complete, thus, he is not entitled for bail. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2024 and only on the basis of the confessional statement, the applicant has been connected with the present matter. The applicant was arrested after about three months of the alleged incident and there is no corroborative evidence except apart the confessional statement of the co- accused persons. In para no. 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is apparent that the main accused is Nagendra Kumar Abhinandan Pathak and the role of the present applicant is distinguishable. Further, the charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Pankaj Surela involved in the Let the applicant- aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) 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 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Shravan SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench