Mohammad Waseem vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The applicant, Mohammad Waseem, sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2026, under Sections 316(5), 352, and 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023, at Police Station Beconganj, District Kanpur Nagar. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the applicant's brother, Mohammad Nadeem Ansari, for allegedly cheating a customer of her gold ornaments. The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, had no role in the alleged offense, and operated a separate business, Mubashara Jewellers, with a distinct GST registration (GSTIN No. 09AHIPA6137H2ZE). He also stated he was on bail in four other cases due to his brother's alleged misconduct. The State opposed the bail, arguing the applicant was part of a conspiracy, his separate GST registration was an evasion tactic, and custodial interrogation might be necessary.

Held

The Court held that the applicant, Mohammad Waseem, is entitled to anticipatory bail. The FIR was not lodged against the applicant directly but surfaced during the investigation. The primary allegation of cheating regarding gold ornaments was against the applicant's brother, Mohammad Nadeem Ansari, who allegedly misappropriated gold given by a customer. While the applicant and his brothers previously ran a joint business, it was later divided into separate entities: New Rahnuma Jewellers (Nadeem), Rahil Jewellers (Taslim alias Rahil), and Mubashara Jewellers (Wasim, the applicant). The Court opined that the applicant's implication might stem from operating a similar business and to exert pressure on his brother. The applicant is not a previous convict and has satisfactorily explained his criminal antecedents, which appear to be linked to his brother's alleged misconduct. Therefore, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety, and adherence to specified conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Mohammad Waseem, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, given the allegations of conspiracy and cheating against him and his brother, Mohammad Nadeem Ansari? The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, had no involvement in the alleged cheating by his brother, and operated a distinct business with a separate GST registration. He relied on a previous High Court order granting anticipatory bail in a similar case. The applicant also contended his name surfaced late in the investigation. The State argued that the applicant was part of a conspiracy, his separate GST registration was an attempt to evade responsibility, and custodial interrogation might be required for recoveries. The State did not dispute the applicant's explanation regarding his criminal antecedents.