High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Aakil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44179 of 2024 Applicant :- Abloo Hasan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Dhananjay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1102 of 2025 Applicant :- Mobin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pratik Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. As these applications arise from the same FIR, therefore, all the three bail applications are being disposed off by a common order.

2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant Aakil, Sri Kumar Dhananjay, learned counsel for applicant Abloo Hasan and Sri Pratik Kumar, learned counsel for applicant Mobin and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The instant bail applications have been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 731 of 2024, under Sections 420, 386, 411 IPC and Section 7-A of P.C. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsels for the applicants submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.08.2024 under Sections 420, 386 IPC but during investigation offence under Section 7A The Prevention of Corruption Act has also added. They further submitted that from the FIR it reflects, it is based on false facts and no reliance can be placed on such version.

5. They further submitted that as per informant applicants received huge amount of Rs. 9 lakhs from him for the purpose to settle the case of his brother-in-law, in which, he was accused but applicants were neither police personnel nor they are related to any police personnel and they are private persons and therefore there was absolutely no occasion for the informant to give money to them.

6. They further submitted that even as per FIR last time money was given by the informant on 06.05.2024 but FIR was lodged on 23.08.2024 i.e. after more than three and half months and thus there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR of the present case too.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Aakil submitted that however during investigation, as per prosecution, Rs. 75,000/- were recovered from his possession but entire allegation leveled against him is totally false and alleged recovered money belongs to the applicant.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Abloo Hasan also submitted that although as per prosecution from the possession of applicant Rs. 1,74,000/- were recovered but entire allegation leveled against applicant is totally false and alleged recovered money belongs to the applicant.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Mobin submitted that however recovery of Rs. 3 lakhs were shown from his possession but entire recovered money also belongs to him. He further submitted that applicant is a business man and after recovery of money from his house, the same has been shown as recovered from his possession by stating that money belongs to the complainant i.e. informant.

10. They further submitted that maximum punishment for offences under Sections 420 IPC and Section 7A The Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years. They further submitted that however with regard to offence under Section 386 IPC maximum punishment is ten years but with regard to offence under Section 386 IPC there is no cogent evidence against the applicants on record.

11. They further submitted that charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter and applicants Mobin and Abloo Hasan are in jail since 23.08.2024 i.e. for almost a year while applicant Aakil is in jail since 16.09.2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

12. They further submitted that applicants are not having any criminal history.

13. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. However, as per allegation, by playing fraud applicants received huge amount of Rs. 9 lakhs from the complainant and substantial amount of money was allegedly recovered from their possession but it reflects, they were not having any criminal history and applicants Mobin and Abloo Hasan are in jail for almost a year while applicant Aakil is in jail for last more than ten months.

16. Further, for offences under Sections 420 IPC and 7A Prevention of Corruption Act the maximum punishment is seven years and with regard to offence under Section 386 IPC, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no cogent evidence against them cannot be ruled out. Further, FIR of the present case has been lodged quite belatedly.

17. Further, applicants are not having any criminal history.

18. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicants - Aakil, Abloo Hasan and Mobin be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

22. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicants.

23. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Aakil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44179 of 2024 Applicant :- Abloo Hasan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Dhananjay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1102 of 2025 Applicant :- Mobin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pratik Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. As these applications arise from the same FIR, therefore, all the three bail applications are being disposed off by a common order.

2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant Aakil, Sri Kumar Dhananjay, learned counsel for applicant Abloo Hasan and Sri Pratik Kumar, learned counsel for applicant Mobin and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The instant bail applications have been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 731 of 2024, under Sections 420, 386, 411 IPC and Section 7-A of P.C. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsels for the applicants submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.08.2024 under Sections 420, 386 IPC but during investigation offence under Section 7A The Prevention of Corruption Act has also added. They further submitted that from the FIR it reflects, it is based on false facts and no reliance can be placed on such version.

5. They further submitted that as per informant applicants received huge amount of Rs. 9 lakhs from him for the purpose to settle the case of his brother-in-law, in which, he was accused but applicants were neither police personnel nor they are related to any police personnel and they are private persons and therefore there was absolutely no occasion for the informant to give money to them.

6. They further submitted that even as per FIR last time money was given by the informant on 06.05.2024 but FIR was lodged on 23.08.2024 i.e. after more than three and half months and thus there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR of the present case too.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Aakil submitted that however during investigation, as per prosecution, Rs. 75,000/- were recovered from his possession but entire allegation leveled against him is totally false and alleged recovered money belongs to the applicant.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Abloo Hasan also submitted that although as per prosecution from the possession of applicant Rs. 1,74,000/- were recovered but entire allegation leveled against applicant is totally false and alleged recovered money belongs to the applicant.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Mobin submitted that however recovery of Rs. 3 lakhs were shown from his possession but entire recovered money also belongs to him. He further submitted that applicant is a business man and after recovery of money from his house, the same has been shown as recovered from his possession by stating that money belongs to the complainant i.e. informant.

10. They further submitted that maximum punishment for offences under Sections 420 IPC and Section 7A The Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years. They further submitted that however with regard to offence under Section 386 IPC maximum punishment is ten years but with regard to offence under Section 386 IPC there is no cogent evidence against the applicants on record.

11. They further submitted that charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter and applicants Mobin and Abloo Hasan are in jail since 23.08.2024 i.e. for almost a year while applicant Aakil is in jail since 16.09.2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

12. They further submitted that applicants are not having any criminal history.

13. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. However, as per allegation, by playing fraud applicants received huge amount of Rs. 9 lakhs from the complainant and substantial amount of money was allegedly recovered from their possession but it reflects, they were not having any criminal history and applicants Mobin and Abloo Hasan are in jail for almost a year while applicant Aakil is in jail for last more than ten months.

16. Further, for offences under Sections 420 IPC and 7A Prevention of Corruption Act the maximum punishment is seven years and with regard to offence under Section 386 IPC, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no cogent evidence against them cannot be ruled out. Further, FIR of the present case has been lodged quite belatedly.

17. Further, applicants are not having any criminal history.

18. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicants - Aakil, Abloo Hasan and Mobin be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

22. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicants.

23. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad