Shadab Anwar Sheikh vs. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Held

The Court rejected the bail application of the applicant, Shadab Anwar Sheikh. The Court considered the facts and circumstances, including that the applicant opened his bank account on the instance of co-accused as part of a conspiracy. The Court noted that several cheques, totaling significant amounts, were presented and credited to the applicant's account, with his phone number mentioned on some. The Court also acknowledged the applicant's alleged involvement in fraud in different states and the filing of the charge-sheet. The primary reasoning for rejecting bail was the strong probability that the accused would continue to commit crimes of a similar nature if released. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but found it appropriate not to release the applicant on bail at this stage. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the bail application was decided on its merits.

Facts

The applicant, Shadab Anwar Sheikh, moved a bail application before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in connection with Case Crime No. 345/2020, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in a fraudulent scheme involving the presentation of cheques for large sums of money, some of which were returned unpaid. The applicant claimed innocence, stating he was falsely implicated and that his bank account was used by co-accused for money transactions related to alleged GST savings. He also contended that he was already in jail in other states when some of the cheques were presented, and that clone cheques were used. The State opposed bail, highlighting the applicant's alleged involvement in fraud across different states and the crediting of significant amounts to his account via presented cheques, some bearing his phone number. Charge-sheet had been filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of fraud and his alleged involvement in multiple states? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he is innocent and falsely implicated. He claimed his bank account was used by co-accused, Ayash Khan, Vikky Malhotra @ Amjad, and Ragghu @ Guru @ Sarji @ Rashid, who convinced him to provide his account for money transactions in exchange for a share of GST savings. He stated that he opened his account at their instance and that the cheques were forged or clone cheques. He further contended that he was already in jail in Karnataka and Rajasthan when some of the cheques were presented, making it impossible for him to have presented them. He also mentioned that a co-accused had been released on bail and that he is a student of mechanical engineering. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed bail, arguing that the applicant is involved in fraud in different states. They presented evidence that several cheques, including clone cheques, were presented and credited to the applicant's account. They highlighted that the applicant's phone number was mentioned on some cheques and that he was a beneficiary of the amounts. The State contended that the applicant opened multiple accounts on the instance of co-accused as part of a conspiracy and that there is a strong probability of him committing similar crimes if released on bail. Charge-sheet has been filed.