Allowed

Asif Naseem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2025/4383/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by the former Managing Director of a company alleged to have duped investors, facing multiple IPC offences and around 528 cases State-wide. With charges not framed over three and a half years after arrest, the court held continued incarceration unjustified and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of no evidence-tampering, no witness pressure, and attendance on all trial dates.

Asif Naseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47470

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4383 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Asif Naseem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Surekha Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashish Deep Verma, Sri Harsh Singh and Sri Pratik Raj, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 1585 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R., stating that the informant had made investments in M/s Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., thereafter, he came to know through newspaper that the Company had duped the investors.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was the Managing Director of the Company, M/s Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., in which, investments were made. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2021 but even the charges have not been framed against him even after the expiry of a period of more than three and half years. It has further been stated in the affidavit that as

¶10

per the knowledge of the deponent, the applicant is involved in about 528 cases through out the State of U.P., all of which are similar in nature. The applicant has already been granted bail in 60 cases.

¶11

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the applicant has duped thousands of persons and the offence committed by him is serious in nature which does not justify his release on bail, but the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2021 and even charges have not been framed till date. A large bunch of bail applications have been connected and listed together and the State has filed a counter affidavit in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4191 of 2025.

¶12

Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2- The Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow has stated that the present case does not relate to offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the Directorate of Enforcement, is a proforma party. However, he has informed the Court that the Directorate of Enforcement has seized a large amount of proceeds of crime and is in the process of distribution of the proceeds amongst the victims of offences.

¶13

In reply to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an interim order restraining distribution of assets of the Company by the Enforcement Directorate.

¶14

The Purpose of keeping an accused in custody during trial is to enure his availability to face the trial. When the trial has not

¶15

commenced in spite of expiry of a period of more than three and half years years since the applicant was taken in custody, it appears that the purpose of keeping the applicant in custody is not being achieved by the prosecution. In these circumstances, the continued incarceration of the applicant does not appeared to be serving the ends of justice.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R alleges non return of a money invested in a Company; it appears that no civil proceedings for recovery of the money has been instituted by the informant; the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2021 and even the charges have not been framed till date, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant- Asif Naseem be released on bail in aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶19

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶21

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶22

Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Preeti.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Asif Naseem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asif Naseem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Aditya Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sheetla Sahai Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Guru Prasad Maurya vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Zonal Unit, Lucknow

Umang Chaudhary vs Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lko. Thru. Vice Chancellor and Ors.

Asif Naseem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another