Karimuddin Ansari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

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 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/Case Crime No. 0055 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 111(2)(B) BNS and Section 66C of Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008, Police Station-Cyber Crime, District-Lucknow.

¶14

It is stated that story of the prosecution is complete false and concocted and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶15

It is further stated that applicant is in jail since 07.04.2025 and he is having no criminal history. Accordingly, Section 111(2)(B) BNS would not be attracted.

¶16

It is further submitted that applicant has been prosecuted on the basis of CCTV footage of the Camera installed at ATM machine as according to this CCTV footage Najarul Ansari was withdrawing money and when Najarul Ansari was arrested the applicant was with this co-accused. In this CCTV footage the applicant is not present.

¶17

It is further stated that mobile numbers-9588307591, 9309295103, 9360983904, which were put to scrutiny, are not the mobile numbers of the applicant.

¶18

It is further submitted that bank accounts involved in the crime i.e. Bank Account No. 159044841527 and HDFC Account No. 50100594971845, are not the bank accounts of the applicant.

¶19

It is further stated that in another CCTV footage, Raja holding mobile number8910753286 was seen.

¶20

It is further stated that co-accused Najarul Ansari was seen in the CCTV footage sitting with the motorcycle of co-accused - Raja.

¶21

It is also stated that the applicant was apprehended with the coaccused Najarul Ansari, during investigation and from the possession of coaccused Najarul Ansari, Police has shown that recovery of one VIVO mobile phone from which a screen shot related to withdrawl of money was sent to co-accused Raja and from the possession of the present applicant the police has shown the recovery of

¶22

BAIL No. 3669 of 2025

¶23

2

¶24

one debit card of SBI and one packet of Rs. 90,000/-.

¶25

It is further stated that recovery shown by the prosecution is not the recovery in the eyes of law as there in no independent witness of said recovery.

¶26

Lastly, it is further stated that applicant is in jail since 07.04.2025 and the trial is not proceeding as is required under law including Section 346 BNSS, akin to Section 309 IPC (now repealed).

¶27

It is further submitted that 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 accused-applicant.

¶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 recovery memo 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- Karimuddin Ansari be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties of like amount, out of which one shall be the family member/close relative of the accusedapplicant, 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

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

¶37

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

¶38

(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.

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

Application is disposed of.

¶42

March 12, 2026

¶43

Jyoti/-

¶44

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶45

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

Karimuddin Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karimuddin Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhagywati vs Shri Nikhil Tikaram Funde, Distt. Magistrate Ayodhya

Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma vs Dr. Brijendra Singh, v.C., Acharya Narendra Dev Agriculture and Tech. University, Ayodhya

Vivek Vikram Singh vs Kumar Harsh Dist. Magistrate Dist. Sultanpur

Imran Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mina Kumari vs Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative Lko. and 3 Others

Gauri Shankar Gupta vs Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others