HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32279 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 16 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 308(6), 61(2), 111 B.N.S. and 66-D I.T. Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Bareilly during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The alleged amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- was transferred in the bank account of M/s. Shri Narayan Private Limited. From the said account the amount was transferred in the bank account of 125 persons. From the said bank account, Rs.12,00,000/- was transferred in the bank account of co- accused Mahendra Singh. The applicant's name was disclosed by the said Mahendra Singh while in the police custody. It is contended that the said statement is unreliable and except the statement of co-accused Mahendra Singh, there is no other corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the alleged offence. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit transaction. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. The CCTV footage does not connect the applicant with the offence. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of other co-accused. It is next contended that the applicant is not a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 05.07.2025 and if he is Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : J Shubham, Jitendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajneesh Dwivedi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report; in the statement of co-accused Mahendra Singh, while in the police custody, the name of the applicant was disclosed; except the statement of co-accused Mahendra Singh, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the alleged offence; no amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant and the CCTV footage does not connect the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant- Rajneesh Dwivedi, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. October 10, 2025 SKT/- BAIL No. 32279 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad