Suneel Kumar @ Sunil Kumar vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The High Court allowed the bail application. While the judgment does not delve into the merits of the allegations of cyber fraud or the specific provisions of the GST Act related to refunds, it focuses on the grounds for bail. The Court considered the totality of facts, the nature of the evidence reflected from the record, and the fact that the applicant had been in jail since February 18, 2026. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and that the trial court would be free to arrive at its independent conclusions. The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties, subject to several conditions aimed at ensuring his presence during trial proceedings and preventing any obstruction of justice.

Facts

The applicant, Suneel Kumar @ Sunil Kumar, sought bail in Case Crime No. 113 of 2025, registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66-C and 66D of the Information Technology Act at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Aligarh. The applicant was arrested on February 18, 2026. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused were involved in cyber fraud to claim forged GST refunds, with one mobile number and email ID implicated. The applicant contended he was innocent, falsely implicated, and that his name surfaced during investigation. He also stated he had not received any amount in his bank account and highlighted the significant pendency of cases, suggesting no early conclusion to the trial. The applicant has been in jail since February 18, 2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 113 of 2025, considering the allegations of cyber fraud involving forged GST refunds and the applicant's role therein? The applicant argued for bail based on his innocence, false implication, lack of direct financial gain (no amount received in his bank account), and the prolonged pendency of the trial. He emphasized that his name surfaced during the investigation. The State, through the learned AGA, opposed the bail application, submitting that the applicant and co-accused were involved in cyber fraud with the intent to claim forged GST refunds. The prosecution pointed to a specific mobile number and email ID being involved in the alleged fraud.