[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Tejpal 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:83359
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11890 of 2026
Tejpal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Aneet Kumar Baghel, Gaurav Singh, Pawan Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.137 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S. and Section 66D I.T. Act, Police Station - Cyber Crime, District - Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The mobile number from which whatsapp call was made to the informant does not belong to the applicant. A total sum of Rs.11,99,50,000/- was transferred to nine different bank accounts. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Arjun Singh in police custody. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. Rs.15 lacs was credited in the account of co-accused Arjun Singh from the bank account of the informant. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transactions. False recovery of two mobile phones and four SIMs has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered mobile phones and SIMs do not connect the applicant with the offence. There is no adverse report of the cyber cell against the applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, identically placed co-accused Pankaj Gupta has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.03.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6099 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph-13 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 06.12.2025 and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard learned 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 mobile number from which whatsapp call was made to the informant does not belong to the applicant. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Arjun Singh in police custody. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Pankaj Gupta has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than four months and after submission of the charge-sheet 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 merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Tejpal, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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;
(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
Manish Kr
