Nitish Kumar Dwivedi vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K.Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 308(2), 61(2) BNS and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Aligarh during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The alleged mobile number from which call was made to the informant does not belong to the applicant. The alleged sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- (seventy five lakhs) was transferred in four different bank accounts. It is contended that the applicant is not an account holder of any of the banks, in which the alleged amount was transferred. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Sanjay Tiwari while in police custody. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit transaction. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. Recovery of a mobile phone has been shown from the possession of the applicant. The said mobile phone belongs to the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of other co-accused. The applicant is in jail since 15.01.2026 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA has 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 the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused Sanjay Tiwari while in police custody. The applicant is not an account holder of any of the banks, in which the alleged money was transferred. There is no report that the alleged mobile number from which call was made to the informant belongs to the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three 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 delay the trial 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 Nitish Kumar Dwivedi, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

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.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

May 6, 2026

Lbm/-