Ramesh @ Ram Vishnoi vs State Of U.P.
2026 Latest Caselaw 874 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ramesh @ Ram Vishnoi vs State Of U.P. on 16 April, 2026

Author: Vivek Varma

Bench: Vivek Varma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:84287
 
 
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11850 of 2026     
 
   Ramesh @ Ram Vishnoi    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)         
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Lalit Kumar Srivastava, Prakash Kumar Shrivastava, Vijay Kumar Tiwari   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
Court No. - 64     
 
 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.     

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.S.Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 39 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5) BNS and Section 66D Information and Technology (Amendment) Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Mathura during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Three mobile numbers from which calls were made to the informant, does not belong to the applicant. From the account of the informant a total sum of Rs. 2,04,00,000/- was transferred in three different bank accounts namely (i) M/s Subh Prabhavey Infra Private Limited, (ii) Subin Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and (iii) M/s Pancia Network Pvt. Ltd. From the bank account of M/s Pancia Network Pvt. Ltd, a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-(in two transactions) was transferred in the bank account of co-accused Lakshya Agrawal, maintained at Kotak Mahindra Bank. The said Lakshya Agrawal while in police custody disclosed the name of the applicant. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not the beneficiary of the illicit transaction. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 22.01.2026 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Lakshya Agrawal while in police custody. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant Ramesh @ Ram Vishnoi, involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

April 16, 2026

Lbm/-