Court No. - 92

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. -

53411 of 2021

Applicant :- Jaseem Khan

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Yatindra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Heard Sri Yatindra, learned counsel for the applicant, and

Sri Sunil Kumar who appears for the complainant virtually

as well as Shri Arvind Kumar Shukla, learned AGA for the

State.

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of

the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Jaseem

Khan for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.0558 of

2020, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 and

120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station-Civil Lines,

District-Prayagraj.

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been

rejected by the court below on 16.11.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first

information report has been lodged at Police Station-Civil

Lines, District-Prayagraj being FIR no.0558 in the above

noted sections by one Prakash Chandra Tiwari that the

applicant who is one of the accused along with the co-

accused had fraudulently duped the honest investors of

their hardened money and the cheques which were also

issued got dishonoured and further in order to wriggle

away from the position so created by them they have

changed the name of the firm. Learned counsel for the

applicant has argued while drawing the attention of the

court towards paragraph no.7 so as to contend that he is

neither the owner of the company nor he is in the

management and further he is just a broker/ agent who has

just introduced about the schemes so launched by the

company under bona fide relief and thus no offence can be

made out against the applicant. Learned counsel for the

applicant has next drawn the attention of the court towards

paragraph no.15 of the bail application so as to contend

that so far as case crime no.807 of 2020, under section

406, 420 IPC and case crime no.474 of 2019, under

sections 379, 406, 420, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. are concerned

final report has been submitted. Learned counsel for the

applicant has further argued while drawing the attention of

the court towards page no.46 of the bail application so as

to contend that one Shri Neeraj Srivastava @ Neeraj

Kumar Srivastava has been enlarged on bail in Criminal

Misc. Bail Application No.22764 of 2021 on 19.7.2021

and in the said order itself recital has been made that the

other co-accused have also been enlarged on bail.

According to the learned counsel for the applicant he is

unnecessary languishing in jail since 2.11.2021. If the

applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty

of bail, he be enlarged on bail.

Countering the said submission learned AGA has opposed

the bail application while arguing that the applicant cannot

be said to be innocent as he was instrumental and his

efforts was the basis for duping the honest investors

however he could not dispute the fact that the criminal

history has been properly explained and the fact that co-

accused have been enlarged on bail. Shri Sunil Kumar who

appears online has also adopted the argument of the

learned AGA while additionally arguing that the applicant

has committed offence and the allibi so sought to be taken

by the applicant that he is not connected with the company

in question is nothing but a farse. Shri Sunil Kumar,

learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that

not only his client but there are other persons who have

been duped and fraud has been commited with them.

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned

counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court

prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail as

the applicant is languishing in jail since 2.11.2021 and

further the fact he has satisfactorily explained the criminal

history and the fact that co-accused have been granted bail,

looking i