Wasim Akram vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Wasim Akram, sought regular bail in a case involving offenses under Sections 420, 489A, 489B, 489C, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged the recovery of counterfeit currency amounting to Rs. 2,500/- from the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to be falsely implicated, stating that the allegations were general and omnibus, and that he was a businessman with a valid GST registration. He asserted no criminal antecedents and had been in judicial custody since February 3, 2023. The State opposed the bail application.

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The decision was based on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the period of custody. The Court found merit in the petitioner's plea for bail, particularly given his submission of having no criminal antecedents and being a businessman with a valid GST registration, which was mentioned in the bail petition. The Court directed the petitioner to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Araria. Additionally, the trial court was directed to verify the petitioner's criminal antecedents at the time of filing his bail bond.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the nature of the alleged offenses (Sections 420, 489A, 489B, 489C, and 34 of the IPC), the recovery of counterfeit currency, and the petitioner's submission of being falsely implicated with no criminal antecedents and having a valid GST registration. Arguments for the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, the allegations were general and omnibus, and there was no direct or indirect evidence against him. He highlighted his status as a businessman with a valid GST registration and stated he had no criminal antecedents. He also emphasized his period of custody. Arguments for the State: The State, through the learned APP, opposed the bail application.