HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2130 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 111(1), 111(2)(b), 241, 317, 318(4), 61 B.N.S. and 66(C) and 66(D) I.T. Act, Police Station- Cyber Crime, District- Gorakhpur during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Recovery of Indian currency of Rs.3400/- and a Samsung Galaxy mobile phone has been shown from the applicant. The said Indian currency and the mobile phone belong to the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered items cannot be linked with the offence. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Shailesh Chaudhari. The only evidence against the applicant is that as per the Call Detail Report (CDR), he was allegedly in telephonic conversion with co- accused Shailesh Chaudhari from 2.8.2025 to 27.10.2025. It is contended that mere telephonic conversation between the applicant and the co-accused does not establish any nexus with the alleged offence. There is no adverse report of the cyber cell connecting the applicant with the commission of the present offence. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is neither a member of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shweta Nishad, Suyash Shekhar, Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shubham Rai .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. The applicant is in jail since 5.11.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. Mere telephonic conversation with the co-accused Shailesh Chaudhari does not link the applicant with the offence, in absence of any adverse report of the cyber cell. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than six months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when 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 intimidate the witness, 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, Shubham Rai involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 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. May 5, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 2130 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad