Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39545 of 2025

Sachin Kumar	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Anjum Vishakarma, G.A., Rahul Saxena :

¶4

Court No. - 69

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

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

¶7

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. 29 of 2025 under Sections 318 (4), 336 (3), 338, 340(2), 61 (2) BNS and 66-D of I.T. Act, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District- Bulandshahar, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 25.8.2025. It is further submitted that the applicant is said to have received Rs.67,000/- in his bank account. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history. 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.

¶9

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. It is submitted that one laptop and certain mobile phones are alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, and that 61 forged joining letters were found on the laptop. It is further submitted that the applicant has allegedly received ₹67,000/- in his bank account.

¶10

5. The FIR has been lodged against unknown persons, and it is alleged that the first informant received a call from one Jyoti, who offered him a job in ICICI Bank. Thereafter, various transactions allegedly took place between the first informant and the accused persons. It is further alleged that the applicant is said to have received ₹67,000/- in his bank account.

¶11

BAIL No. 39545 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

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

¶14

7 . Let the applicant- Sachin Kumar 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 :-

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

April 7, 2026 Fhd

¶23

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sachin Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Kumar 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

Sahzada Kuraishi @ Mu Shahzada vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Singh vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Kumar Arya vs State of U.P.

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

Anees Ansari vs State of U.P.

Varun Sharma vs State of U.P.