Dismissed¶16

Arjun Kumar Gaur v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2026BAIL/44870/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; Arjun Kumar Gaur; Case Crime No. 422 of 2025; Sections 318(4)/338/336(3)/340(2)/3(5) BNS; Sections 66C, 66D I.T. Act; PS Civil Lines, Rampur; cyber crime; earlier rejection by ASJ Court No. 2 Rampur dt. 06.11.2025; custody since 27.10.2025; Allahabad High Court; Ashutosh Srivastava, J.; decided January 8, 2026.

What did the court decide?

While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment, the character of the accused, circumstances peculiar to him, his role and involvement in the offence, involvement in other cases, and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with. ¶13

Arjun Kumar Gaur vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44870 of 2025

¶2

Arjun Kumar Gaur

¶3

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sanjay Kumar Singh, Tej Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 68

¶5

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶6

Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh along with Shri T.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arimardan yadav, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The bail application has been filed seeking enlargement on bail of the applicant Arjun Kumar Gaur in Case Crime No. 422 of 2025, under Sections 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2), 3 (5) BNS and Section 66 C, 66 D of I.T. Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District-Rampur, during the pendency of trial before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant before the Court below has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Rampur, vide order dated 06.11.2025 and the applicant is incarcerated in jail since 27.10.2025.

¶8

Learned counsels for the applicant have argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case for ulterior motives. It has been argued that the FIR was lodged by the Sub Inspector alleging that the accused persons are engaged in Cyber Crime and various electronic devices have been recovered from the possession of the accused persons. It is submitted that the applicant is a resident of Bihar and had accompanied co-accused Ankit and Vikas to the Nasrullah Khan Market but was apprehended midway by the police. The recovery of Mobile Phone, Sim Card, ATM Cards from the possession of the applicant is false and planted one. As a matter of fact only one Mobile with two Sim Cards installed in it and some cash was recovered from the applicant. Not a single penny has been transacted in the Bank account of the applicant and the same is not even remotely connected with the cyber fraud alleged. There is no

¶9

BAIL No. 44870 of 2025

¶10

¶11

independent witness of the recovery nor there is any complaint of any cyber fraud. The applicant has no criminal history and no offence alleged is made out against the applicant. Hence bail has been prayed for.

¶12

Per contra, Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned AGA vehemently opposes the prayer for bail by submitting that sufficient material exists against the applicant establishing his complicity in the commission of the crime. The applicant was arrested while working on a computer table in the premises in question and recoveries were made from his possession and from the rack of the table as detailed in the FIR/ Recovery memo. It is also submitted that investigation is going on against the applicant and other co-accused persons.

¶13

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶14

This Court finds that in India, the rapid advancement of technology and the widespread adoption of digital infrastructure have led to a significant rise in cyber-crimes including phishing scams, ransomware attacks, cyber-stalking and data breaches. Initiatives like Digital India have accelerated the country's' digital transformation, but they have also exposed vulnerabilities that cyber-criminals exploit.

¶15

Cyber-crime has been affecting the people across the nation, irrespective of religion, region, education or class. Newspapers, Magazines, You Tube Channels and Social Media are brimming with ordeals of an uncountable number of innocent victim of the cyber-crime, who are defrauded of their hard earned money. Such cyber-crimes are rampant in our society, and must be curbed. Cyber-crime in our country is like a silent virus stealthy, disruptive, and costing society more than just money, but trust, security and progress.

¶16

In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶17

January 8, 2026 Deepak/

¶18

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arjun Kumar Gaur v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Kumar Gaur 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

Jameel vs State of U.P.

Jameel vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar @ Subhash vs State of U.P.

Vikas Yadav vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Abdul vs State of U.P.