Allahabad High Court
Satyam Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. on 3 September, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:52616
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8379 of 2025
Satyam Tiwari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ram Chandra Dwivedi, Apoorv Srivastava, Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 12
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. In the FIR, it has been alleged that near Sultanpur Road, one Ajay Pratap approached the informant and disclosed information regarding the applicant who was allegedly involved in several Chinese fraud telegraph groups and maintained contact with Chinese fraudsters. It is alleged that these fraudsters, in connivance with applicant and his associates, used fake bank accounts to deposit proceeds of cyber fraud, which were subsequently withdrawn through ATMs and cheques. For these transactions, the applicant and his associates allegedly received substantial commission.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid information, recovery was made by the police, wherein 16 mobile phones, 2 laptops, 2 cheque books, 4 four-wheeler vehicles and certain cash were seized. Eight persons were arrested, and an FIR was lodged under Sections 317(2), 318(4), 61(2), 111(2)(b) of the BNS and Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act at Police Station Cyber Crime, Lucknow.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused persons namely Mo. Shaad, Krish Shukla, Laeek Ahmad, Manish Jaiswal and Diwakar Vikram Singh, who have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 25.8.2025, 25.8.202525.8.2025, 29.8.2025, 26.8.2025 respectively.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that except for Section 111 BNS, the remaining offences are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. He further submits that no offence under Section 111(2)(b) BNS is made out inasmuch as the said provision requires proof of continuous unlawful activity, i.e., filing of charge sheets in more than one case. In the present matter, except for the instant case, no charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, registration of FIR under Section 111 BNS is unwarranted and section 111 BNS has been added only to enhance the severity of the punishment.
6. It is further submitted that, as per the recovery memo, three mobile phones and cash amount of Rs. 70,000/- have been recovered from the applicant. The applicant, being an engineer by profession, uses his laptop for professional purposes. Mere possession of a laptop and mobile phones does not constitute any offence unless such devices are proven to be connected with the alleged crime.
7. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application but could not demonstrate from the record that, till the filing of the charge sheet, any other charge sheet had been filed against the applicant. He submits that the present case pertains to a large-scale cyber fraud scam unearthed by the police. However, he does not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this court and it is a case of parity.
9. On due consideration to the provisions of Section 111 BNS, the admitted position that except for the present case no other charge sheet exists against the applicant, the fact that the remaining offences are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, charge sheet has already been filed, and the applicant is in custody since 21.06.2025 as also the applicant seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused persons, named above, and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant on the ground of parity.
10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.
11. Let the applicant Satyam Tiwari involved in Case Crime No. 98/2025, under Sections 317(2), 318(4), 61(2), 111(2)(b) of the BNS and Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act at Police Station Cyber Crime, Lucknow, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).
12. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.
(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) September 3, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S