Javed Malik vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Javed Malik. The Court considered the facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, the severity of potential punishment, the supporting evidence, and the reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses. While not commenting on the merits of the case, the Court prima facie found that a case for bail was made out. The applicant is to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Conditions for bail include not tampering with evidence, not indulging in criminal activity, not pressuring prosecution witnesses, cooperating with the trial, and appearing regularly on each date fixed by the trial court, unless personal appearance is exempted. Breach of these conditions would allow the court to cancel his bail.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by Javed Malik, the applicant, seeking release during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 140 of 2024. The FIR was lodged against Arpit Sharma concerning a non-existent firm, M/s Sharma Enterprises, allegedly involved in GST evasion. The applicant claims innocence and states he has no connection to this firm. He is the proprietor of M/s Kapeshwar Enterprises, a GST-registered firm since 2018, involved in purchasing iron scrap through one Dilshad, with all transactions supported by valid bills uploaded on the GST portal. The applicant was allegedly implicated as the seventh accused based on the confessional statement of Dilshad Malik, after six persons were initially apprehended. Items including a car, mobile phone, and cash were recovered from the applicant's possession. A co-accused, Ramesh Patel, was granted bail. The applicant has no criminal history.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Javed Malik, has made out a case for grant of bail under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, considering his alleged lack of connection to the fictitious firm M/s Sharma Enterprises and his legitimate business dealings through M/s Kapeshwar Enterprises. Contentions of the Applicant: The applicant argues he is innocent and falsely implicated. He asserts no connection to M/s Sharma Enterprises and claims his firm, M/s Kapeshwar Enterprises, is GST-registered and conducts genuine business with valid bills. He was added as an accused based on another's confession without justification. He highlights that a similarly situated co-accused, Ramesh Patel, has been granted bail and that he has no criminal history. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial. Contentions of the Revenue/State: The learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.