Allowed¶18

Prashant Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 May 2026BAIL/40585/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed; digital arrest cyber fraud; cheating/cheating by personation BNS Ss.318(4), 337, 338; S.66D I.T. Act; S.483 BNSS 2023; name surfaced in confessional statement of co-accused; no money trail in applicant's bank account; parity with co-accused (bail rejected) distinguished; no criminal history; custody since 05.9.2025; personal bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; conditions incl. presence under S.351 BNSS; Allahabad High Court, May 14, 2026; Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.; Case Crime No. 19 of 2024, PS Cyber Crime, Pilibhit.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Prashant Chauhan in Case Crime No. 19 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the enumerated conditions; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail. ¶18

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Prashant Chauhan should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 19 of 2024 (Sections 318(4), 337, 338 BNS and 66D I.T. Act, 2008 (Amended), PS Cyber Crime, Pilibhit) during pendency of the trial.

¶11

Court's answer

On consideration of the totality of facts, nature and evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found it a fit case for bail.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed.

¶18

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/tampering, no pressurising witnesses, personal presence at specified trial hearings including statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, and presence on each date personally or through counsel).ratio¶19
The applicant's case stands on a different footing from co-accused Rajendra Sharma @ Rajan (whose bail was rejected) because the applicant did not receive any amount arising out of the fraudulent transaction in his bank account, unlike the co-accused who is said to have received Rs. 30,00,000/-.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted (Allahabad High Court, Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.) under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 to an applicant arraigned in Case Crime No. 19 of 2024 (PS Cyber Crime, District Pilibhit) under Sections 318(4), 337, 338 BNS and 66D I.T. Act, 2008 (Amended), arising from a 'digital arrest' cyber fraud in which Rs. 57,89,776/- was allegedly siphoned off from the first informant's account. The applicant's name surfaced only in the confessional statement of arrested co-accused Rajendra Sharma @ Rajan, who allegedly received Rs. 30,00,000/- in his bank account, whereas nothing from the fraudulent transaction was received in the applicant's account; the applicant had no criminal history and was in custody since 05.9.2025. Distinguishing the co-accused, whose bail had been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench, the Court held it a fit case for bail without expressing any opinion on merits and released the applicant on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, imposing conditions (including presence under Section 351 B.N.S.S.) and clarifying that the trial court would be free to reach independent conclusions.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40585 of 2025

Prashant Chauhan

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

	...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anoop Singh, Gaurav Singh Mahendra Nath Pandey	Chauhan,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Atul Kumar Pandey, G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 69

¶9

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶10

1. Heard Sri Mahendra Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Atul Kumar Pandey, learned cousnel for the first informant, Sri B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶11

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. 19 of 2024 under Sections 318(4), 337, 338 BNS and 66D I.T. Act, 2008 (Amended) registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Pilibhit during pendency of the trial.

¶12

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the FIR has been lodged against unknown. It is further submitted that name of the applicant has surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Rajendra Sharma @ Rajan who is said to have received Rs. 30,00,000/- in his bank account whereas the applicant has not received any amount in his bank account. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and and he has been languishing in jail since 05.9.2025. 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.

¶13

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submit that applicant is the mastermind of the entire fraudulent transaction

¶14

BAIL No. 40585 of 2025

¶15

¶16

and the allegations against him are very serious. The first informant was put in digital arrest and an amount of Rs. 57,89,776/- is said to have been siphoned off from his account.

¶17

5. FIR has been lodged against unknown as per which, first informant is said to have been put in digital arrest by some unknown person and huge amount of Rs. 57,89,776/- is said to have been siphoned off from his account by way of cyber fraud. Name of the applicant has surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of arrested co-accused Rajendra Sharma @ Rajan who is said to have received Rs. 30,00,000/- in his bank account whereas applicant has not received any amount in his bank account. Applicant has no criminal history and and he has been languishing in jail since 05.9.2025. Bail application of co-accused Rajendra Sharma @ Rajan has been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as he is said to have received Rs. 30,00,000/- in his bank account whereas case of the applicant stands on a different footing as he has not received any amount arising out of the fraudulent transaction in his bank account.

¶18

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 .

¶19

7 . Let the applicant Prashant Chauhan 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 :-

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

BAIL No. 40585 of 2025

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

May 14, 2026 Madhurima

¶30

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶31

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

Prashant Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Chauhan 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

Bablu and Another vs State of U.P.

Mohd Fardeen vs State of U.P.

Khalik vs State of U.P.

Ravishankar Vs State of U.P.

Rajneesh Dwivedi Vs State of U.P.

Prashant Baghgel Vs State of U.P.