Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 106632 (ALL)

ABHISHEK PRATAP SINGH v. State of U.P.

BAIL/41058/2024 · 2025-02-26

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27165 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41058 of 2024 Applicant :- Abhishek Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh,Rajan Maurya,Ravi Kumar Singh,Shikhar Neelkanth Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.99 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 66, 66-D of Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 30.09.2021 against one Yogesh Chauhan alleging that he made fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.24,40,000/- from the ATM of Punjab National Bank in numerous transactions of Rs.10,000/- each in a manner that none of the transactions was reflected in his bank account. After the bank lodged the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer shared the particulars of Yogesh Chauhan with certain other banks, whereupon it came to light that one Shashidharan had also fallen a victim of an online fraud, whereby he was induced to transfer Rs.2,59,000/- through online mode. In further investigation it came to light that the amount from the bank account of Shashidharan was also transferred to the bank account of Yogesh Chauhan in Union Bank of India. The applicant had made a withdrawal from that bank account through a customer service provider and, therefore, he has also been made an accused in this case. The act of making withdrawal from the customer service provider was recorded in a CCTV footage where it is seen that the applicant did not make any effort to conceal his identity. He had put his signatures also while making the withdrawal. The applicant stated that the co-accused Yogesh Chauhan is related to him and he had made the withdrawal at his instructions. In his custodial confessional statement, the applicant is said to have confessed about his involvement with Yogesh Chauhan in commission of the offence. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 5. The applicant is involved in a case arising out of an F.I.R. No.19 of 2022, Police Station Cyber North, Delhi in which he has been granted b ail by means of an order dated 10.05.2022, passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The applicant is also involved in F.I.R.No.68 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420 I.,P.C. registered at Police Station Cyber Police Station South, Delhi, in which he is yet to be granted bail. 6. The State has filed a counter affidavit and the material annexed with the counter affidavit also discloses that the applicant had made a withdrawal from the customer service provider and no other act committed by the applicant is evident by the material placed along with the counter affidavit. 7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the only allegation against the applicant is of having made withdrawal from customer service provider and there is no allegation of commission of any act by him and that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.06.2024 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime. 8. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 9. Let the applicant-Abhishek Pratap Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad