Himanshu Chaudhary vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The Court considered the nature of the offence, the material/evidence on record, the complicity of the accused, the severity of the punishment, and the submissions made by both parties. The Court was of the view that the applicant had made out a case for bail. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Conditions were imposed, including not tampering with evidence, not indulging in criminal activity, not pressuring prosecution witnesses, cooperating in the trial, and appearing regularly on each date fixed by the trial court, unless personal appearance is exempted. The Court noted that in the event of breach of any condition, the bail could be cancelled.

Facts

The applicant, Himanshu Chaudhary, sought bail in Case Crime No. 143 of 2025, under Sections 316 (2), 318 (4), 3 (5), 238 BNS and 66, 66D of the IT Act, registered at Police Station-Kotwali, District-Etawah. The FIR was lodged by an Inspector (Crime) nominating five persons, including the applicant. Recoveries alleged include mobile phones, cheque books, passbooks, debit/ATM cards, QR scanners, PAN cards, Aadhaar cards, a firm stamp, a Metro Card, a deposit slip, a registration certificate, a GST Registration Letter, a pen drive, a car punch, and a motorcycle. The applicant was charged with cyber fraud. His bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, on August 6, 2025. The applicant has been in jail since July 20, 2025. The charge sheet was submitted on September 15, 2025, and cognizance was taken on September 17, 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail given the allegations of cyber fraud and the evidence collected by the investigating officer. Contentions of the applicant: The applicant claims innocence and false implication. He argues there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. He has no criminal antecedents and is a student preparing for the NDA exam. He admits to online gaming and earning rewards, disclosing account details which may have been hacked. He contends he is not the beneficiary of fraudulent transactions but his account was used as a mule account. The alleged offence is triable by a Magistrate with a maximum punishment of seven years. Investigation is complete, charge sheet filed, and cognizance taken, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary. The trial is unlikely to conclude soon. A co-accused, Yash Pratap Singh, was granted bail by a coordinate bench. The applicant undertakes to cooperate and not misuse liberty. Contentions of the State (Revenue/Opposite Party): The learned AGA opposed the bail plea, submitting the applicant is involved in cyber fraud and credible evidence establishes his complicity. However, the AGA could not dispute that the applicant has no other criminal antecedent and that the charge sheet has been filed and investigation closed.