Dismissed¶16

Sunil Raliya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2026BAIL/29967/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; cyber fraud; Sections 318(4), 61(2) BNS; Section 66D I.T. Act; Case Crime No. 1 of 2025; P.S. Cyber Crime Kannauj, District Kannauj; WhatsApp/Telegram part-time job scam; UPI deposits to Sunil Raliya3928@oksbi and abhi769182-1okaxis; HDFC Bank account; amount frozen; Rs.2,00,000 demanded to unfreeze; Rs.3,00,000 demanded for credit score; applicant not named in FIR; implication through confessional statement of co-accused Rohan Loat; beneficiary of cyber fraud; 11 criminal antecedents; flight risk; Sessions Judge Kannauj rejection dated 18.8.2024; custody since 26.7.2025; Ashutosh Srivastava, J.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29967 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

The Court found that the applicant is the beneficiary of the cyber fraud. ¶15

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29967 of 2025

¶3

Sunil Raliya

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P.		.	....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Chandra Prakash Rochak Tripathi	Pandey,	Mahender,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 68

¶7

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Chandra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shashank Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the records.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 1 of 2025, under Sections 318 (4), 61 (2) of BNS and Section 66D of I.T. Act, Police Station Cyber Crime Kannauj, District Kannauj, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application in the Court below has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Kannauj vide order dated 18.8.2024 and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 26.7.2025.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the bail plea has vehemently submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The FIR has been lodged nominating the holder of WhatsApp No. 7409187883 and one Haider Ali Sarkar. The applicant has not been nominated. The FIR was lodged with the allegation that the informant was contacted by WhatsApp No. 7409187883 offering him part time job and was added to a telegram group. The informant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/into HDFC Bank Account Number 50200022538280, IFSCHDFC0002337, as fee. The informant on further instructions deposited a sum of Rs.31,000/- and Rs.1,21,000/- through UPI to Sunil Raliya3928@oksbi and abhi769182-1okaxis, respectively. Rs.5,000/- was

¶11

BAIL No. 29967 of 2025

¶12

¶13

refunded to the informant but remaining amount was frozen and Rs.2,00,000/- was demanded to unfreeze it which also the informant deposited. Later on, a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was demanded from the informant to improve his credit score whereafter, he realized that cyber fraud had been committed. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that applicant was not named in the FIR nor named in the statement of the informant. The name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Rohan Loat who is a beneficiary of the cyber fraud. It is argued that apart from the statement of the coaccused there is no other evidence to implicate the applicant in the commission of crime. It is also argued that the applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail plea by submitting that the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime stands established by the investigation. It is accordingly prayed that the bail application warrants outright rejection.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, the Court finds that the applicant is the beneficiary of the cyber fraud. He has criminal antecedents of 11 cases and is a flight risk. This Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶17

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶18

February 26, 2026

¶19

Vinod.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Raliya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Raliya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhveer vs State of U.P.

Bajrangi Kumar Bind vs State of U.P.

Sonu Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Aman Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Ajay vs State of Up Others

Vikash Kumar @ Veer Pratap vs State of U.P.