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

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant, while working as the Managing Director of Shai Group, induced investors, including the complainant, to invest in the real estate projects of the said company. Acting upon such representations and assurances of high returns, the complainant is stated to have invested an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/-. It is further alleged that even after a lapse of about seven years, neither the invested amount has been returned nor the plot in question has been given.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that a co-accused, namely Amitabh Kumar Srivastava, against whom similar allegations were levelled, has already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1007 of 2025, and accordingly seeks parity with the said order. It is further submitted that the applicant has explained his criminal antecedents relating to 527 cases in the bail application and out of the said cases, he has been granted bail in 331 cases.

¶13

It is further submitted that the alleged offence is triable by a Magistrate. The applicant has been in judicial custody for the last four years and two months, and the trial has yet to commence. Specific pleadings in this regard have been made in paragraph 19 of the bail application. In support of the aforesaid

¶14

BAIL No. 10977 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moti Ram v. State of M.P., (1978) 4 SCC.

¶17

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

Upon due consideration to the bail order passed in favour of co-accused Amitabh Kumar Srivastava, the role attributed to the applicant, the fact that the applicant has remained in custody for more than four years, and the undisputed position that the trial is yet to commence, this Court finds it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant Asif Naseem , involved in Case Crime No. 96 of 2020, u/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station- Gomti Nagar, DistrictLucknow, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶22

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

¶23

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶24

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶25

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶26

January 7, 2026 R.C.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV 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

Satish Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dr. Priyanka Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Ayush Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Manoj Kumar @ Anuj Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Hari Prakash Khare vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Technical Education U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Shivam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Munnu vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.