Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11874-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2118 of 2024 Appellant :- Wasiullah Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Home Lko Counsel for Appellant :- Farooqahmad,Ajai Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Heard Sri Farooq Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shiv Nath Tilhari, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The instant Criminal Appeal has been moved under Section 21(4) of The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 24.04.2024 corrected on 02.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, A.T.S., District Lucknow in Bail Application No.2801/2024 by means of which, the bail application of the appellant has been rejected by the learned trial court. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that on 25.09.2023, an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.0010/2023, under Sections 121-A, 171 of I.P.C., Section 66-D of The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 13 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was lodged against one Shailesh Kumar @ Shailendra Singh Chauhan. The accused/appellant was not named in the F.I.R. On 20.11.2023, the accused/appellant was falsely implicated in the said case on the basis of certain statements made by main accused, Shailesh Kumar @ Shailendra Singh Chauhan and one Abhishek, who was not accused. The only allegation against the accused/appellant is that he had transferred Rs.2,000/- only into the account of named accused, Shailesh Kumar @ Shailendra Singh Chauhan on 23.08.2023. During the course of investigation, the A.T.S. is alleged to have recorded statement of the main accused but the main accused, Shailesh Kumar @ Shailendra Singh Chauhan did not take the name of the accused/appellant. It was during the course of investigation that the A.T.S. has found the appellant to have transferred Rs.2,000/- only into the account of named accused. He further submits that only because of transfer of money of Rs.2,000/- through UPI, the accused/appellant had been roped in as an accused and had been falsely implicated. He further submits that during recording of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Abhishek S/o Sushil Giri, who was working as a plumber in M.E.S. Dehradoon, Uttrakhand, it has come out that the appellant had transferred some money in his account as well. However, the appellant had never talked with Abhishek and even Abhishek is not an accused and has not been arrested and even Pakistani Handlers, Harleen Kaun and Preete have also not been arrested. He further submits that the appellant does the work of mobile recharging and when customers approach him, he transfers money into their account for the purpose of mobile recharging otherwise he is a contractor doing civil construction work. He is a law abiding citizen and has not committed any offence and a false story has been cooked up by the A.T.S. Learned A.G.A. for the State, on the other hand, pointed out from the counter affidavit/objections filed against the appeal that it is evident from the statement recorded of the main accused, Shailesh Kumar @ Shailendra Singh Chauhan that he was approached by Pakistani Handlers for sending photographs and information of Army Bases in North Eastern Region and also photographs of movement of Army vehicles. He was promised remuneration in this regard and also he had received Rs.2,000/- in April, 2023 and again Rs.2,000/- in August, 2023 through UPI. He further submits that on investigation, it was found that such online payment was made by the appellant. It has also come out from the statement of Abhishek S/o Sushil Giri that the appellant had transferred Rs.2,000/- through UPI in his account at one point of time and Rs.3,000/- again through UPI in his account. He further submits that there is no reason why a person, who allegedly does work of mobile recharge, would transfer money into the account of his customers actually it should be the other way around, if the genuine customer approaches a person for recharging his mobile, the money should have been transferred into the account of such person for onward payment to the mobile company/service provider. He further submits that also from the statement of the accused, it has come out that the appellant had contacted them on phone and was aware of the existence of Harleen Kaur and Preete, the Pakistani Handlers and had also persuaded the main accused to give information and photographs as requested by such Handlers. He further submits that it is through the account of the appellant that money was transferred as remuneration for secret information passed on to the Pakistani Handlers. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also having gone through the order impugned, prima facie we find that learned Special Judge, A.T.S., Lucknow has properly applied his mind to the evidence produced by the prosecuting agency and has taken into consideration not only such evidence produced but also the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant that he was doing only work of mobile recharging but has found such argument to be specious. Having carefully examined the statements/documentary evidence filed alongwith the counter affidavit of the respondent and also arguments raised, we are of the considered opinion that the order impugned does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity so as to be interfered as prayed for. The appeal stands dismissed. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench