MOHAMMAD WASEEMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 9600 of 2026

Mohammad Waseem
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                      :   Sharique Ahmed
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                 :   G.A.

Court No. - 71
                 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant; and Learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.78 of 2026, under Sections 316(5), 352 and
351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023, Police Station – Beconganj, District Kanpur
Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as the applicant
apprehends his arrest in the aforesaid case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. The First Information Report
(FIR) has been lodged against the brother of the applicant. The applicant
has no role to play in the said case. The brother of the applicant,
Mohammad Nadeem Ansari has a separate GST registration and his
business is distinct from that of the applicant. Due to the misconduct of
the brother of the applicant, the applicant has been falsely implicated in
four other cases in which the applicant is on bail. Learned counsel has
placed reliance on an order of this Court passed in NABAIL No. 9431 of
2026 for Case Crime No. 71 of 2026 where, under similar allegations, this
Court, taking note of the submissions of the applicant, had granted
anticipatory bail to the applicant. The Learned counsel for the applicant
has further submitted that the applicant's name has been introduced quite
belatedly during investigation even when the application under Section
173(4) of the BNSS had been moved with excessive delay.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that
                                                    NABAIL No. 9600 of 2026
                              2


the applicant and his brother, including the other accused, by hatching a
conspiracy have cheated the informant and other similarly situated
persons. The applicant is trying to evade responsibility solely by
contending that he has a separate GST registration. The name of the
applicant has surfaced in the investigation and he may be required for
custodial interrogation and recoveries. He may not be considered for grant
of anticipatory bail. Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the explanation
given by the applicant with respect to his criminal antecedents.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the
parties.

6. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of an application under Section
173(4) of the BNSS and the applicant is not named in the FIR. The name
of the applicant has surfaced in the investigation. The allegation against
the co-accused, who is the brother of the applicant, is of cheating the
informant who is a lady who was getting her ornaments made at New
Rahnuma Jewellers said to be the firm of the co-accused Mohammad
Nadeem Ansari and the informant states that she had given two sets of
ornaments weighing sixty seven grams of gold which the co-accused had
promised to convert by making three separate sets of ornaments for the
same weight of gold in a new design. The said gold has supposedly been
misappropriated by the co-accused. The counsel for the applicant has
specifically stated in paragraph No. 20 that he has a separate GST
registration in the name of Mubashara Jewellers bearing GSTIN
No.09AHIPA6137H2ZE.

7. From the perusal of the material on record it appears that Nadeem,
Wasim (the applicant) and Rahil alias Taslim are three real brothers who
earlier had been running the business jointly in the name and style of
Rahnuma Jewellers. The said shop was later divided into three separate
shops with New Rahnuma Jewellers belonging to Nadeem, Rahil
Jewellers belonging to Taslim alias Rahil and Mubashara Jewellers
belonging to Wasim. In the opinion of the Court, taking note of the
allegations made in the FIR and the entire facts and circumstances as
appearing from the record, the implication of the applicant may be on
account of running a similar business and to create pressure on the co-
accused Mohammad Nadeem. Applicant is not a previous convict and has
                                                                                          NABAIL No. 9600 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    explained his criminal antecedents satisfactorily. In the other cases also he
                                    appears to have been implicated subsequently due to the misconduct of
                                    his brother Mohammad Nadeem.

                                    8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the
                                    case, as discussed above, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on
                                    anticipatory bail.

                                    9. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

                                    10. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Mohammad Waseem,
                                    involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory
                                    bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and surety in the like amount to the
                                    satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court
                                    concerned, with the following conditions:-

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

                                    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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
                                    officer;

                                    iii. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
                                    the Court;

                                    iv. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;

                                    11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
                                    shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

                                    12. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
                                    for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
                                    considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.



                                                                                      (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
                                    September 30, 2026
                                    Kushal




Digitally signed by :-
KUSHAL AGRAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad