Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Shiv Kumar Alias Shivay Mehra vs State Of U.P.

Allahabad High Court6 May 2026Vivek Varma

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An applicant charged with offences under Sections 318(4), 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act is entitled to bail during trial where: (1) the applicant was not named in the first information report but arrested on the basis of an informer's information; (2) there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery and no corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offence at that stage; (3) identically placed co-accused have already been granted bail; (4) the applicant has no criminal antecedents; (5) the applicant has been in custody for more than four months with no prospect of early trial conclusion; and (6) the prosecution has not demonstrated a reasonable apprehension that the applicant would tamper with evidence, delay the trial, or intimidate witnesses.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABADNeutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:105341HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABADCRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13149 of 2026Shiv Kumar Alias Shivay Mehra.....Applicant(s)VersusState of U.P......Opposite Party(s)Counsel for Applicant(s):Amit SinghCounsel for Opposite Party(s):G.A.Court No. - 64HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 72 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 61(2) B.N.S. and 66(D) Information and Technology Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The alleged mobile number from which whats-app call was made to the informant, does not belong to the applicant. A total sum of Rs. 3,30,40,000/- (Three Crore Thirty Lakhs Forty Thousand only) through multiple transactions has been transferred from the bank account of the informant. It is contended that no amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit transaction. On the basis of an information furnished by an informer, the applicant was arrested along with 7 other co-accused. False recovery of a mobile phone has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered mobile phone do not link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Alok Kumar Gupta, Abhay Mishra @ Nitin and Shivam Patel have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 20.03.2026, 31.03.2026 and 20.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 8683 of 2026, 10906 of 2026 and 12979 of 2026 respectively. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 26.12.2025 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. On the basis of information furnished by an informer, the applicant was arrested along with 7 other co-accused. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Alok Kumar Gupta, Abhay Mishra @ Nitin and Shivam Patel have been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than four months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Shiv Kumar @ Shivay Mehra 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 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

v.k. updh.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free