Allahabad High Court
MUSHTAQUE ALAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The bail application is allowed; the accused is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
Mushtaque Alam, an additional director of Shine City, was arrested in connection with alleged fraud and conspiracy offences (IPC sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B) and has been in custody since October 2021. He filed a bail application during the early stage of trial, contending that he was merely an employee with no substantive role and that the FIR did not originally name him. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges and his extensive criminal history. The court noted that a co‑accused had already been granted bail and that Alam’s role appeared marginal, and therefore, without addressing the merits, allowed the bail. He was released on personal bond and two sureties, subject to appearing before the trial court as directed, citing recent Supreme Court bail guidelines.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with serious IPC offences (409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B) during the pendency of trial.
- Whether the accused’s alleged role as additional director and his prior criminal record preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- fraud
- criminal breach of trust
- conspiracy
- additional director
- pre‑trial detention
- Supreme Court bail jurisprudence
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42429 of 2025
Mushtaque Alam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhananjay Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for accused
applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant/ accused-
Mushtaque Alam to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 117 of 2022,
under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, P.S.- Cantt.,
District- Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the FIR has
been lodged on 17.03.2022 through an application under section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. against three named persons, wherein accused/applicant has not
been named. Learned counsel submits that the matter relates to Shine
City, wherein the company has advertised for the sale of plots and
accepted money from the allottees. The informant and other persons were
one of the allottees. It is the contention of learned counsel that during
investigation it is found that the accused/applicant, who was initially the
agent of Shine City became the Additional Director of the company with
marginal role in the company but has been made a face of the company by
the other co-accused, Rashid Naseem and Asif Naseem, who are the
founder of the Shine City and the applicant has no role. The
accused/applicant has criminal history of 48 cases, wherein in 46 cases,
he is on bail and in two cases his bail application is pending. It is further
contended that the accused is merely an employee of the company with no
business. The charge sheet is submitted. The accused applicant is
BAIL No. 42429 of 2025
2
languishing in jail since 13.10.2021. The trial is still at nascent stage. He
seeks to be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State and learned counsel for the informant have
opposed the prayer for bail.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the role of accused/applicant, who is apparently the
Additional Director of the company with no specific profile shown in the
case diary whereas the other co-accused Amitabh Srivastava, who was
named in the FIR has already been granted bail by the coordinate Bench
of this Court, the accused/applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
8. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused/applicant shall ensure his presence either personally or
through counsel before the trial court on every date.
10. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 30, 2026
Abhishek Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…