Aslam Alias Laeek vs State of U.P.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Aslam Alias Laeek seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.267 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 419, 120-B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 16.9.2025. It is submitted that 11 accused persons are named in the FIR, whereas applicant is not named in the FIR and his name was surfaced on the basis of subsequent statement of co-accused Rajesh Sharma but no specific and separate role of applicant has been assigned either in the FIR or in the case diary. It is argued that co-accused Rajesh Sharma and Nawab Jaan @ Sayeed have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 29.4.2024, 29.2.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.12342 of 2024, 6788 of 2024 respectively and parity is sought in the matter. It is further argued that applicant has criminal history of three cases which have been explained in para 24 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant

¶12

BAIL No. 40527 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is submitted that investigation of the present case is still going on. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 , dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶19

(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 of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶20

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly, in accordance with law.

¶21