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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30304

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2527 of 2025

Applicant :- Asif Naseem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tirpathi,Surekha Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amrita Singh,Brijesh Singh Vishen

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to F.I.R. /Case Crime No. 1597 of 2019 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, allegation levelled against the applicant, who has been introduced as Managing Director of company incorporated in the name and style of Shine City Infra Project Private Limited is that money invested by the investors was siphoned off into various shell companies or sister companies with the company and its Directors not following through with their promises of providing immovable property to the investors despite advertisement to that effect which induced the investors to invest in the company.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the allegation levelled against him and that there is no aspect of cheating indicated in the FIR from a bare perusal thereof. It is further submitted that there is considerable difference in the aspect of cheating vis-a-vis breach of promise and as per allegations levelled, the aspect of cheating is clearly not made out particularly in view of fact that the applicant was taken into custody only on the basis of blog allegedly posted online by a person who was not even an investor in the company but was an Advocate. It is submitted that previous criminal history of the applicant has been explained and applicant is in judicial custody since 01.11.2021 with trial not yet having commenced.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to various bail orders granted to the applicant on that very ground and seeks parity.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with

¶12

submission that applicant is the prime accused along with his brother Rashid Nasim and both the persons in collusion with other nominated persons in the FIR were instrumental in defrauding the investors of company by not following through on their deceitful promise. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation, it transpired that the applicant had made promises of allotment of immovable property without actually owning any such immovable property.

¶13

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that primary allegations levelled against applicant in the FIR do not contain any averment that the applicant did not possess any such immovable property for which advertisement or inducement was made. It also appears that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of blog operated by an Advocate who has not introduced himself as an investor in the company. The aspect of cheating vis-a-vis breach of promise would require consideration by the trial court as per evidence.

¶14

The applicant is under incarceration since 01.11.2021 and as per report dated 13.04.2025 submitted by the trial court, evidence has not yet commenced although charge sheet had been filed on 12.09.2022. Evidently, the applicant has undergone incarceration for more than four years without commencement of trial.

¶15

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶16

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶17

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that

¶18

refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶19

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶20

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let applicant Asif Naseem involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS.

¶24

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 BNS.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶26

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Renu/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL 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?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Arif Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Mohd. Iliyash Alias Mohd. Iliyas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Lko

Pavan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Salmaan vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Yadav Alias Bachha Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another