Dismissed

Mohammad Aslam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2023ABAIL/12179/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Mohammad Aslam under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that no good ground was made out for bail as the applicant failed to cooperate with the investigation following the misappropriation of investor funds, leading to a bailable warrant.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application of Mohammad Aslam is rejected.

Mohammad Aslam Vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12179 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Aslam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Abrar Khan,Prem Narayan Rai,Shariq Shamim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

¶6

Facts in brief are that applicant and other co-accused persons are office holders in Tintri Mulstistate Cooperative Society Credit Ltd., the head office of which is located at Lucknow in which co-accused persons are Chairman and Managing Directors but money was deposited through agents by several persons in the company amounting to near about Rs. 2 crors but it was not returned to investors that was the reason, they made pressure on the agents to get their money refunded but it was not done by the company that was the reason this F.I.R. was lodged on behalf of agents of the company, those inspire the people to invest their money through them.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. This applicant is not Manager of the company but he was an employee and got salary. He is not direct beneficiary of the amount deposited in the company but it may be the company at all. Further submitted that the complaint has not been made by any investor but it has been made by the agents. No any amount was grabbed by this applicant with other coaccused persons and at present investigation is going on and B.W. has already been issued by the learned court against him. Lastly, it is submitted that investigation is going on, therefore, the applicant is under apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, he is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it appears that in this case, money from several

¶10

persons have been invested in the aforesaid company in which applicant and other co-accused persons are office holders and the money was not refunded to the investors. The company was closed and the amount invested by the people about Rs. 2 crores is said to be grabbed by the company and even the fact that applicant is not making cooperation with the investigation as a result B.W. has been issued. Hence, no good ground is made out for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application of applicant Mohammad Aslam involved in Case Crime No. 91of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 507 IPC, P.S. Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi is hereby rejected .

¶11

Order Date :- 28.1.2023 A. Singh

¶12

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Aslam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Aslam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Triloki Nath Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kr. Pandey Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Others

Chandrabahadur Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maulana Qambar Hussain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Nagar Alias Surender Singh Vs State of U.P.