Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Rishikesh Shukla vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 24 July, 2026
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.5 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No.35637/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
27-02-2026 in CRLMBA No. 24068/2024 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad]
RISHIKESH SHUKLA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)
IA No. 201175/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 201176/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING /
CURING THE DEFECTS
Date : 24-07-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Palash Singhai, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2026.07.25
12:32:16 IST
Diary No.35637/2026 1
Reason:
2. The petitioner has been denied Regular Bail by the High
Court in connection with FIR No. 127 of 2023 dated
09.05.2023 registered with Police Station Sikariganj,
District Gorakhpur for the offence punishable under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 406 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). The petitioner has
been in judicial custody since 30.01.2024.
3. The petitioner is accused of fraudulently posing himself
as an officer of a well-known company, and thereby
collecting a total amount of Rupees Seventy Lakhs from
the complainant, his neighbors, and his co-villagers,
promising them employment and power charging station
licenses.
4. A chargesheet has been filed in this case, in which it
has been recorded that the petitioner had created
fraudulent e-mail IDs in the names of three persons whom
the petitioner had represented to be other officers in
the same company, to the complainant and others. These
three persons were named as accused in the FIR, but as
they did not exist, their names were dropped from the
chargesheet.
5. The impugned order has been challenged by raising several
grounds such as the investigation being complete, absence
of recovery from the petitioner, as well as the ground
that out of the three accused who have been charge-
sheeted, only the petitioner has been arrested.
Diary No.35637/2026 2
6. Despite the chargesheet being filed on 29.03.2024, the
jurisdictional court has not framed charges yet. The
investigation is admittedly over, and there is no reason
why the petitioner should be continued in jail, pending
trial.
7. On a prima facie consideration of the material on record,
we are of the opinion that the petitioner can be released
on bail, subject to cooperating with the investigation
and such other terms and conditions that the
jurisdictional court may deem fit to impose. The
petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer
(for short “I.O.”) as and when directed and shall also on
specific directions issued appear before the
jurisdictional court.
8. With the above directions, the Special Leave Petition is
disposed of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
Diary No.35637/2026 3
