Shanoo Vs State of U.P.

The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, at the instance of the applicant Shanoo, has been filed seeking the enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2025, under Sections 318 (4), 319 (2), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2) of the BNS and Section 66-C, 66-D of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Rampur, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant before the Court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur vide order dated 21.8.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.7.2025.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The FIR giving rise to the instant case crime number has been lodged with the allegation that one Suresh (brother-in-law of the informant) had booked the car of the applicant for going to Muzaffar Nagar and return to Rampur. Suresh is alleged to have left his mobile phone in the car which fact was acknowledged by the applicant who assured to return the same, but did not return the same. The said mobile is stated to have been misused by the applicant to open an UPI account in the name of Suresh and syphon out a sum of Rs.5,07,029/from the SBI main branch bank A/c No. 20381731038 between 7.6.2025 and 22.6.2025. It was stated in the FIR that Suresh had no UPI account and that the mobile number was linked with the bank account and Aadhar card.

¶12

BAIL No. 35325 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

It has been argued that the FIR version is preposterous and nothing was left by the said Suresh in the car. In fact, a hot talk took place between Suresh and the applicant regarding the monetary charges for the entire trip and the applicant was falsely implicated. The FIR is delayed by 05 months. No complaint was lodged regarding the missing phone, blocking the SIM or intimation to the bank about possible misuse. The applicant has clean antecedents and undertakes to co-operate in the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail, if released on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the bail plea by submitting that the applicant along with co-accused Rezu @ Monu created an UPI account of Suresh Kumar using a photocopy of Suresh Kumar’s Aadhar card available on the mobile of Suresh Kumar and withdrew a sum of Rs.5,07,029/- from his bank account between 7.6.2025 and 22.6.2025. Accounts were transferred into various accounts and purchases were made. Charge sheet has already been filed against the applicant and his complicity in the commission of the crime is established. However, learned AGA could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

From the perusal of the records, it is borne out that charge sheet against the applicant has already been filed and as such, custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. The records further reveal that Suresh in his statement has admitted to have obtained another SIM of the same number on 16.6.2025. The fraudulent transactions attributed to the applicant are alleged between 7.6.2025 to 22.6.2025. Prima facie, the earlier SIM is made inoperative on the issue of fresh SIM. The false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out.

¶18

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the accused-applicant, Shanno, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶21

BAIL No. 35325 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶24

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶25

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶26

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless her personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶27

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel her bail.

¶28

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶29

January 28, 2026

¶30

Ravi / Deepak

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shanoo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanoo 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

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Bilal Vs State of U.P.

Sarabjeet vs State of U.P.

Chandra Prakash vs State of U.P.

Sharafat vs State of U.P.

Sahil vs State of U.P.