HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42970 of 2025 Along with : 1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 949 of 2026: Aftab Alam Versus State of U.P. 2. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44942 of 2025: Jagjeet Singh Versus State of U.P. Court No. - 68 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Shri Rajrshi Gupta alongwith Shri Jitendra Rana, learned counsels of the applicants, Shri Vijendra Kumar learned AGA for the state and perused the records. 2. All the aforesaid bail applications arise out of same Case Crime Number therefore the same are being decided by a common order. 3. All the aforesaid bail applications on behalf of the applicants, namely Aman Agarwal, Aftab Alam and Jageet Singh, have been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 120 of 2025, under Sections 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2), 3 (5) BNS and 66 D of I.T. Act, Police Station- Cyber Crime, District Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial before the Court below. The bail applications of the applicants in the Court below were rejected by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Ghaziabad vide Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Rana, Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Aman Agarwal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) orders dated 13.10.2025 and the applicants are languishing in jail 27.06.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants have vehemently contended that the applicants are entirely innocent and have been falsely implicated in this very case for ulterior motive. The First Information Report giving rise to the Case Crime number in question was lodged nominating the applicants and 7 other persons with the allegation that the applicants along with other co-accused persons describing themselves as representatives of various companies commit cyber fraud in the name of selling Insurance Policies to people and with the help of computers create fake and forged Insurance Policies, receipts, and fraudulently transfer the monies collected as premium into various bank accounts and later withdraw the money through ATMs. On an information received from police Informer a raid was conducted at the place informed (under the Flyover of Pratap Bihar, Police Station Area, Vijaynagar) and 26 Mobile Phones, 4 Cheque Books, 2 Cheques, 3 pass books, 14 ATM Cards, 4 Sim Cards, 2 Four wheeler Cars and Rs. 1,98,000/-were recovered from 7 accused persons (including the applicants) who were arrested from the spot. Applicant, Aman Agarwal, alleged to be on the driving seat of the vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-14-GN-5597 and several incriminating materials mentioned in the First Information Report was recovered from his possession. Applicant Aftab Alam, and Jagjeet Singh, were alleged to be sitting in the alleged vehicle and several other incriminating materials, mentioned in the First Information Report were recovered from their possession also. It has been argued that that the recovery made from the applicants are false and fabricated as there is no independent witness to the said recovery. It is also argued that the applicants were not arrested from the spot and they have been arrested from different places. It has been further argued that the applicant Aman Agarwal was arrested from his house on 23.06.2025 much prior to the date of incident which is alleged to have taken place on 27.06.2025. Information of the illegal detention on 23.06.2025 is stated to have been sent to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, by his brother. It is also argued that the applicants have not committed any cyber fraud as alleged. Applicant Aman Agrawal has criminal antecedent of one case being Case Crime No. 40 of 2025 BAIL No. 42970 of 2025 2 under Section 318 (4), 61 (2) BNS in which he is on bail. Applicants, Aftab Alam and Jagjeet Singh have no criminal antecedents. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has next argued that besides the confessional statement of the applicants there is no corroborative evidence to connect the applicants with the crime. The Whatsapp chats made from the mobile phones of the applicants has no evidentiary value in the absence of certification under Section 63 of the Evidence Act. Charge sheet against the applicants has already been filed on 14.09.2025 and as such investigation against the applicants is complete and their custodial interrogation is no longer required. 6. Lastly it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the police while conducting the search and seizure has not followed the mandate of Section 105 BNSS which is mandatory rendering the entire recovery illegal. It is argued that Section 105 BNSS prescribes the process of videography regarding search of a place or taking possession of any property or articles including the preparation of list of all seized to prevent the plantation of false recovery by certain police officials and also create legal material for the fair trial. Likewise, Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Rules 2024 provides the procedure of audio video recording of search of any place or taking possession of any property. Rule 18 further provides that audio video recording or searching any person place or taking possession of any property or article or material including preparation of list of articles seized as well as signatures of witness on such list shall be done immediately through E- Sakshya App or other audio video electronic means which includes mobile phone. It is thus sought to be argued that the compliance of Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Rules 2024 is mandatory and failure to comply would render the entire search and seizure illegal. Consequently the applicants would stand entitled for bail. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40989 of 2025, Shadab vs. State of U.P. 7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail plea by submitting that the applicants were apprehended along with other co- BAIL No. 42970 of 2025 3 accused persons and from their possession 2 four wheelers having registration No. UP 14 GN 5597 and UK14 L2828, 26 mobile phones, 6 Cheque Books, 3 Pass Books, 14 ATM Cards, 4 Sim Cards and from the Applicant Aman Agrawal alone 8 Mobile Phones, 9 ATM cards of Several Banks, one Airtel Sim and Rs. 1,98,000/- relating to fraud policy was recovered. 1,98,000/- relating to fraud policy was recovered. It is further submitted that the applicants were arrested from the spot with incriminating articles which establish the involvement of the applicants in the crime alleged. From the INFinix Mobile, using Mobile No. 7409486010 several Whatsapp chats were found which contained details of policy Holders, their Aadhar Cards, Bank Account details, details of Bank transactions, shared with other numbers, fraudulent Insurance Policies, receipts etc. were recovered and as such no case for bail can be said to have been made out and the applications warrant outright rejection. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have given my due consideration to the rival contentions. Admittedly the applicants were apprehended from the spot and recoveries of incriminating articles have been made from the possession of the applicants and co-accused persons. The recovery of the incriminating materials from the possession of the applicants have not been explained and the only stand taken is that compliance of Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Rules, 2024 has not been made rendering the entire search and seizure illegal and inadmissible. 9. The pith and substances of the submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the entire search and seizure operation against the applicants and other co-accused is illegal being in clear violation of Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 of the U.P. Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Rules, 2024 and as such cannot be relied upon against the applicants and co-accused persons. 10. In the opinion of the Court the entire submission of learned counsel for the applicants cannot be accepted in its entirety. Though the search and seizure may be illegal but the incriminating material recovered cannot be said to be inadmissible. The seizure of the articles cannot be said to be vitiated. I am fortified in my view by a recent decision of the Apex Court BAIL No. 42970 of 2025 4 rendered in Case of Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2026 INSC 176, wherein, it has been held that while the search may be illegal, the materials or evidence gathered or collected in the course of such search can still be acted or relied upon subject to the rule of relevancy and test of admissibility. In Radha Kishan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1963 SC 822) the three judges Bench of the Apex Court in the context of search operation in the premises under Section 103 and 165 of the old Criminal Procedure Code, which accidentally led to a large numbers of letters and postcards being recovered held that even if it is assumed that the search was illegal, the seizure of the articles is not vitiated. Then again a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspector (Investigation), New Delhi, reported in 1974 (1) SCC 345 while examining a challenge to search and seizure of certain premises under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the ground that the authorization for the search as also the search and seizure were illegal, after referring to various provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 held that unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in law evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out. 11. In the case at hand the evidence/ material recovered from the possession of the applicants and other co-accused persons has some relevance to the offence alleged and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that there is non compliance of Section 105 BNSS or Rule 18 of the U.P. Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Rules, 2024. Prima facie the Court is of the opinion that the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. 12. 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. 13. Cyber-crime has been affecting the people across the nation, irrespective of religion, region, education or class. Newspapers, BAIL No. 42970 of 2025 5 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. 14. In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to release the applicants on bail. All the aforesaid bail applications are, accordingly, rejected. February 23, 2026 Deepak/ BAIL No. 42970 of 2025 6 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad