HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32254 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, holding brief of Sri Abhinav Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 667 of 2023, under Sections 420 IPC and Section 66D of I.T. Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Kannauj, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. 5. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR. Even the account no.489110310000066 belongs to one Niranjan Ram. The only allegation against the applicant is of having received the amount of Rs.2,02,100/- from the said accoount of Niranjan Ram. The amount of Rs.1.47 lacs transferred to his account on 31.12.2024 and the remaining amount was transferred subsequently, as such the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. 6. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant is not directly involved in the said offence. Even the said amount received by the applicant has been recovered by the police, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. 7. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.05.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhinav Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jai Mangal Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Jai Mangal Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 19, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 32254 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad