TASSARUN NAZREEN v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER
NABAIL/369/2025 · 2025-04-28
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 136797 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 136797 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24069 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 369 of 2025 Applicant :- Tassarun Nazreen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar,Raj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.196 of 2024, under Sections 111(4), 318(4) B.N.S. and Sections 43, 66 C of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Police Station, District Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 22.11.2024 against the accused persons namely (i) Rahul Zonwal, (ii) Sheikh Abdul Khader Zilani, and (iii) Tassarun Nazreen by an official of Aegis Customer Support Services Private Limited stating that the informant's company provides voice support, back office operation, e-mail communications and chat support services to Flipkart Company. It came to light that the accused persons made tampering with the Flipkart console software due to which refund was made for certain products which have been delivered to the customers thereby causing loss of Rs.79,83,036/- to the company. As per the report of Flipkart Company the informant Aegis had
discovered the fraud in July, 2024. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of anticipatory bail application it has been stated that the applicant is a young woman aged 28 years, she is innocent, she has been falsely implicated in the present case and she has no criminal history. Co-accused Rahul Zonwal has already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this court by means of an order dated 12.03.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2196 of 2025. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 6.
Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that even as per the F.I.R. version the loss came to light in July, 2024, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 22.11.2024; that the F.I.R. does not disclose any specific role of the applicant in commission of offence; that one of the co-accused persons has been enlarged on bail by this court coupled with the fact that the applicant is a young woman having no previous criminal history and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Tassarun Nazreen before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other
conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court' (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. . (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)
Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench