Sanjay Bobby Deshwal Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4277 of 2026

Sanjay Bobby Deshwal	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Aditya Yadav, Shivam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Atul Kumar Pandey, G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 71

¶5

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Sri Atul Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by applicant to grant anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 19 of 2024, under Sections 308(2), 319(2) BNS, P.S.- Cyber Crime, District- Pilibhit.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for accused-applicant that the F.I.R. is lodged on 21.12.2024 for the incident carried out between 09.08.2024 to 22.08.2024 against the anonymous persons by the informant regarding digital arrest and taking of Rs. 57,89,776/- by playing fraud from the informant. Further submits that the applicant has no criminal history. During investigation, he was on bail. The charge sheet is submitted. Further submits that the trail of investigation is such that the amount, which was taken by the informant was transferred to five accounts in three banks, namely, IndusInd Bank, Federal Bank and SBI Bank, respectively. The accused-applicant is a landlord, where the firm of RTTS is a tenant. Rajendra Sharma and Vikash Verma, who are the accused in the present case, has been stated to be linked to the accused-applicant. Further submits that the transaction which was between Rajendra Sharma and the accused-applicant was a rental transaction and has nothing to do with the alleged cheating carried out with the informant. Further submits that the applicant was already on bail in order dated 26.09.2025 passed by

¶9

NABAIL No. 4277 of 2026

¶10

2

¶11

the court of Sessions Judge Pilibhit. After the submission of the charge sheet, two sections 308(2) and 319(2) BNS has been added. The applicant has moved the anticipatory bail before the trial court, but his bail application was rejected. The applicant wants to join the trial, but apprehending arrest and seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

Countering the argument of learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant submits that the trail of money reached to the applicant. The bail application of co-accused has already been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court. He submits that the applicant has a role and his bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶14

The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three insightful judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 , Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 , wherein it is consistently held by Hon'ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the accused and flight risk.

¶15

This Court while considering that the accused-applicant is on bail during the investigation. He claimed to be the landlord and the transaction between the co-accused and applicant was the rental transaction. In grievous section, the applicant was already granted bail and further considering the gravity of accusation and apprehension of arrest in the case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating with the investigation and trial, is of considered view to grant anticipatory bail.

¶16

NABAIL No. 4277 of 2026

¶17

3

¶18

The applicant- Sanjay Bobby Deshwal involved in the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer, as the case may be within 30 days from the date of this order and shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions :-

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

(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 BNSS.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶27

May 5, 2026 Shivangi

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Bobby Deshwal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Bobby Deshwal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahjad Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt.) Lko. and Another

Suresh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Chhatrpal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mahaveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ompal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Dubey Vs State of U.P.