Javed Malik Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9427 of 2026

¶3

Javed Malik

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anand Prakash Dubey, Prashant Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 68

¶7

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Heard Shri A.M. Pandey under the authority of Shri Anand Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vijendra Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶9

The instant bail application at the instance of applicant Javed Malik has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 140 of 2024, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Lohamandi, District Agra, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant before the Court below has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Agra vide order dated 9.3.2026 and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 27.12.2025.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The FIR has been lodged nominating one Arpit Sharma with the allegation that a firm, namely, M/s Sharma Enterprises, House No. 170 Kunj, Phase-2, Akbar Road, Blood Bank, Kamla Nagar, Agra is registered on the GST Portal with GSTIN No. 09QBXPS2197L1Z1 and its proprietor is Aprit Sharma. On inspection, it was found that the firm is non existent at the address mentioned. The owner of the premises has also denied the existence of the firm or its proprietor and also denied the fact of renting the same to any Arpit Sharma. It is alleged that the fictitious firm is involved in the GST evasion.

¶11

BAIL No. 9427 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant has no connection whatsoever with the firm M/s Sharma Enterprises and has no dealings with it. The applicant is not named in the FIR. He is the proprietor of M/s Kapeshwar Enterprises, Khasra No. 35, Opp. A-14A, Village Gharhi Chokandi, Sector 68, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar U.P., and his firm is registered with GST since, 2018. The applicant is an income tax payee and is involved in the purchase of iron scrap from various firms through one Dilshad. The applicant has legally purchased goods through the said Dilshad on valid/legal bills and paid for the goods through Bank. All the bills have been uploaded on the GST Portal. The dealing of the applicant is with genuine registered firms.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that recovery memo itself shows that during alleged six persons were apprehended by the Police. Later on, on the basis of confessional statement of main accused Dilshad Malik, applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and added as seventh accused without any justification or explanation. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that one Hundai Creta car, one mobile phone i.e. iPhone17 Pro having mobile number 9897051041 and a sum of Rs.700/were recorded from the possession of the applicant and all the materials belongs to the applicant. Applicant is a small property dealer and earns his livelihood through property brokerage. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that similarly circumstanced co-accused Ramesh Patel has already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 30.3.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10576 of 2026. The applicant has no criminal history and no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC can be said to be made out against the applicant. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if the same is granted to the applicant. Hence, bail is prayed for.

¶15

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶16

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

BAIL No. 9427 of 2026

¶19

3

¶20

Let the accused-applicant, Javed Malik , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶21

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶22

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶23

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶24

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶25

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶26

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶27

April 2, 2026

¶28

Ravi Prakash

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Javed Malik v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed Malik 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

Mohd. Dilshad vs State of U.P.

Lavkush Yadav vs State of U.P.

Vinay Shankar Lal vs State of U.P.

Harshvardhan Jain Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Maheshwari vs State of U.P.