Mohd. Waseem Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119048

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 5276 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohd. Waseem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kushagra Srivastava,Shahrukh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 17 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., Sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Sections 3(1), 58, 72(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021, Police Station Simbholi, District Hapur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 22.01.2024. The first information report was lodged on 28.01.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The applicant is not the owner of the alleged gata no. 36 situated at Village Sikhoda District- Moradabad. The applicant has no concern with the illegal excavation of the sand. As per the first information report, the vehicles were parked by the roadside. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The investigation is still pending. It is next submitted that the applicant has apprehension of his arrest and in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the

¶12

applicant and the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged belatedly, as per the first information report, the alleged vehicles were parked by the roadside, at this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Mohd. Waseem be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶19

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Sachin Mishra

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Waseem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Waseem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases