Sanat Gorai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12997 of 2025

Sanat Gorai

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Zia Ul Qayuim, Farman Rashid, Mohd Ashif Khan, Syed Mohd. Afzal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 13

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

¶11

On a query being put, learned AGA submitted that he has complete instructions in the matter, as such, this Court proceeded to hear the application seeking bail on merits.

¶12

Heard Sri Zilani, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶13

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in FIR No. 373 of 2025, under Sections 108, 318(4), 317(2), BNS and under Section 66 D.I.T. Act, Police Station-Mohanlalganj, District-Lucknow.

¶14

Considered the facts, as indicated, including the following:-

¶15

(i) According to FIR the minor-Yash Kumar aged about 15 years, was playing on-line game known as 'Free Fire'.

¶16

(ii) Clause 1.5 of the terms and conditions related to 'Free Fire' on-line game annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit, filed today indicates that (a) that 'Free Fire' game can be played by a person who has attained the age of majority, (b) A person below 18 years could play 'Free Fire' game with the permission from a parent or legal guardian after opening an account ; (c) If a minor creates an account for the purposes of playing the 'Free Fire' on-line game, the parent or legal guardian would be responsible;

¶17

(iii) An amount to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000/- was debited from the account of informant and this fact came to the knowledge of informant on 11.06.2025;

¶18

(iv) According to the case of the applicant he came in the contact with the minor/Yash Kumar, who was playing 'Free Fire' on-line game on 20.08.2025;

¶19

(v) An amount to the tune of Rs. 1,45,750 was credited in the account of applicant;

¶20

BAIL No. 12997 of 2025

¶21

2

¶22

(vi) An amount to the tune of Rs. 5,17,998 was credited in the account of Nikhil Raj, who has been charge-sheeted and whose matter is pending before the Juvenile Justice Board;

¶23

(vii) An amount to the tune of Rs. 1,89,998/- was received by Ankita Raj in Bank account, who has not been charge-sheeted and Anuradha Kumarmother of Nikhilraj received an amount to the tune of Rs. 2,08,000/- in her account, has also been charge-sheeted;

¶24

Considered Section 9 of Promotion and Regulation of OnLine Gaming Act, 2025, according to which the maximum punishment which could be awarded for committing an offence under Section 5 would be 3 years or with fine which may extend to one crore rupees or with both, which prima-facie would be attracted in the instant case.

¶25

Considered the essential ingredients to attract the offence related to Section 108 BNS, akin to Section 306 IPC (now repealed) including the judgment(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 and Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2021) SCC Online SC 873 (v) and also considered the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment dated 05.03.2024 passed in the case of Prabhat Kumar Mishra Alias Prabhat Mishra vs. State of U.P. and another, (2024) 3 SCC 665;

¶26

Also considered the fact that minor committed suicide.

¶27

Also considered that the applicant is having no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 01.10.2025 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak.

¶28

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accusedapplicant.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including which are related to allegations made in the FIR and the judgment(s) referred above and keeping in mind the period of incarceration as also the chance of conclusion of trial in near future and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶30

Let the applicant- Sanat Gorai be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/-, out of which one shall be the family member of the accused-applicant, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶31

(i) The applicant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶32

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶33

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶34

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶35

(v) 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.

¶36

BAIL No. 12997 of 2025

¶37

3

¶38

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

¶39

(vii) The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶40

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶41

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶42

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶43

Application is disposed of.

¶44

January 14, 2026 Jyoti

¶45

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶46

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanat Gorai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanat Gorai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj @ Manoj Kumar Kori vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Chandani Thru. Her Next Friend /Husband Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian/Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Budhi @ Rizwan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Narendra Kumar Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Victim of Case Crime No. 191/2023 Thru. Concerned S.H.O. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others