Allowed¶16

Nazim Ansari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026BAIL/21320/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed under S.483 BNSS 2023; cyber fraud case; Case Crime No. 57 of 2024; Sections 420 IPC and 66D I.T. Act; P.S. Cyber Crime, District Meerut; FIR against unknown persons; applicant's name surfaced in investigation; Rs. 20,00,000 alleged credit in applicant's bank account; chargesheet filed; custody since 05.12.2024; prior bail in similar case by Sessions Court Bhopal (counsel's submission); personal bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; bail conditions incl. S.351 BNSS appearances; no expression on merits; AGA opposed citing large credit in account.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Nazim Ansari in Case Crime No. 57 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the enumerated conditions regarding conduct, witness protection and attendance before the trial court.

Nazim Ansari Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Nazim Ansari should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2024 under Sections 420 IPC and 66D I.T. Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Meerut, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶15

Key takeaways

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; personal presence at opening of case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S.; undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; presence before the trial court on each date personally or through counsel), breach of which shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶16
Anything said in the order is limited to the purpose of determining the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits; the trial court is absolutely free to arrive at independent conclusions on the evidence.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.): Bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 allowed. The applicant, Nazim Ansari, sought bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2024 under Sections 420 IPC and 66D I.T. Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Meerut. The FIR was lodged against unknown persons; the applicant's name surfaced during investigation on the allegation that he had received Rs. 20,00,000 in his bank account in the cyber fraud committed with the first informant. Chargesheet had been submitted and the applicant was in custody since 05.12.2024. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held it a fit case for bail and directed release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, imposing conditions (including presence for framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S.) and clarifying that nothing in the order was an expression on the merits and the trial court would be free to reach independent conclusions.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21320 of 2025

¶2

Nazim Ansari

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

State of U.P.	Versus .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Neetu Singh, Diwakar Kumar Tiwari, Harish Chandra Pal, Jitendra Kumar Singh, Prashant Kumar, Rahul Singh Dahiya : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 69

¶6

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Harish Chandra Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.57 of 2024 under Sections 420 IPC and 66D I.T. Act, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Meerut during pendency of the trial.

¶9

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 05.12.2024. It is further submitted that FIR has been lodged against unknown and during investigation, name of the applicant has surfaced and it has been alleged that applicant has received Rs.20,00,000/- in his bank account in the alleged cyber fraud. It is further submitted that applicant has been granted bail in a similar case by the learned Sessions Court at Bhopal. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶10

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that huge amount of money has been credited in the bank account of the applicant in the alleged cyber fraud.

¶11

5. FIR has been lodged against unknown and name of the applicant has surfaced during investigation and it has been alleged that applicant has received Rs.20,00,000/in his bank account in the alleged cyber fraud committed with the first informant. Chargesheet in the case has been submitted and applicant is languishing in jail since 05.12.2024.

¶12

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record

¶13

BAIL No. 21320 of 2025

¶14

¶15

and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED .

¶16

7 . Let the applicant Nazim Ansari involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶17

(i) 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.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

(iii) 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 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶20

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶21

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

¶22

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶24

April 23, 2026 Madhurima

¶25

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nazim Ansari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazim Ansari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushant Singh Dhakrey and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmveer Singh vs State of U.P.

Yaseen Pathan @ Yaseen Ghoda vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Nanhe @ Bagla vs State of U.P.

Sabir @ Kalia Vs State of U.P.