Momin Khan vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court denied the bail application. The primary reasoning was based on the fact that the firm M.K. Enterprises was registered with the GST Department in the applicant's name as the proprietor, and the firm's bank account was also in the applicant's name. The Court reasoned that a bank account cannot be operated by someone other than the account holder or an authorized person with shared sensitive information like ATM PINs or passwords. Considering the serious nature of the allegations in the FIR, which prima facie constituted grave offences against the applicant, the Court concluded that he was not entitled to bail. No specific sections of the GST Act were discussed in detail, but the registration of the firm under GST was a material fact considered.

Facts

The applicant, Momin Khan, sought bail in a case involving alleged fraud through a Point of Sale (POS) machine. The informant, India Transact Service Limited, alleged that the applicant made 46 transactions totaling Rs. 32,93,248/- between January 14, 2021, and March 9, 2021. The applicant allegedly claimed technical faults with the POS machine, leading customers to reclaim funds from banks, which the informant-company then had to cover. Investigations revealed no technical fault, and the amounts were successfully transferred to the applicant's account and withdrawn. The applicant was arrested on June 15, 2021, with items including letter pads of 'M.K. Enterprises' and bank cards recovered. The applicant claimed innocence, stating his identity documents were misused by one Rakesh Kumar, under whom he worked at M/s. M.K. Enterprises.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail given the serious allegations of fraud and misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs. 32,93,248/- through the misuse of a POS machine, as per Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 IPC. Petitioner's arguments: The applicant contended that the FIR's transaction period (January 14, 2021) was contradicted by the bank statement showing the first transaction on February 5, 2021. He also argued that as an uneducated person, his PAN and Aadhar cards were misused by co-accused Rakesh Kumar, making him a victim. Revenue's arguments: The State argued that the applicant was the main accused who obtained the POS machine and misappropriated the funds. The informant's counsel added that the transactions were made from the bank account of M.K. Enterprises, operated by the applicant, and that his claim of document misuse was false.