HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2007 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State on this anticipatory bail application in case crime No.169 of 2024 under sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., 3/5/21/23 BUDS Act, P.S.Bangarmau, district Unnao, and perused the record. 2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that the co-accused Adnan Khan, Ayazuddin, Anwaruddin along with the applicant opened a firm in the name and style 'Arbaz Enterprises Pvt. Limited'. Allegedly, they have allured the informant to invest money in their firm. Accordingly, the informant transferred Rs.5 lacs through RTGS. It is further alleged that to gain the confidence of the informant, the said amount was returned along with profit by the accused persons. Then the informant invested his own money as well as he persuaded other persons to invest in the aforesaid firm and approximately Rs.2 crores has been deposited by the informant and other persons. It is further alleged that no money has been returned by the accused persons. On being asked to return money, the accused persons have hurled abuses and threatened to kill. 3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is purely a civil dispute and investment was made by the informant in the firm of the applicant for lucrative return. He has got returns in the past. This time, he could not get Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Praveen Kumar Yadav, Atul Krishna, Prajjwal Harsh, Rishabh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arbaz Khan @ Arbaz @ Kasan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) return and instead of filing a civil suit for recovery of money, the present first information report has been registered. It is submitted that this court vide order dated 6.11.2025 passed in anticipatory bail No.1611 of 2025 in different case crime No.309 of 2024, although of similar nature, has granted interim protection to the applicant Arbaz Khan of the said application. It is submitted that Smt. Rajbala and Anwaruddin, co-accused have also been granted anticipatory bail, in different crime numbers, vide orders passed in Anticipatory Bail Nos.11869 of 2025 and 757 of 2025 respectively. It is further submitted that in Coordinate Bench as well as this court have also granted anticipatory bail to the applicant and co-accused persons, though in different crime number(s). 4.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the applicant has a chequered criminal history of 16 cases starting from 2023. He further submits that the applicant has not having any licence of SEBI nor he is registered under SEBI and therefore, he cannot do business. He further submits that interim protection to Arbaz Khan, accused was granted by this court on the presumption that he had no criminal history whereas present accused applicant has a chequered criminal history, as referred to above. The application is liable to be rejected. 5.The applicant's counsel submits that as regards the criminal history, the accused applicant has explained the same in para 24 of the bail application and in the supplementary affidavit. Out of 16 cases, the applicant has arrived at settlement in five cases. Under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act (BUDS), no certificate of registration is required to do business. It is submitted that the business carried out by the applicant is in conformity with the BUDS certificate. He further submits that he has stated in para 23 of the bail application that some of the amount has been transferred by the applicant to the account of the informant Anjum Ali. NABAIL No. 2007 of 2025 2 6.I have perused the submission and perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that the interim protection granted to accused Arbaz Khan appears to have been granted on the premise that he had no criminal history, although, the said order has been corrected subsequently on an application given on behalf of the applicant. 7.In view of the above discussion as also the fact that the applicant has a criminal history of several cases of similar nature, prima facie, it appears that custodial interrogation is required in this case, this being an exceptional jurisdiction, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 8.The application is accordingly dismissed. December 15, 2025 kkb/ NABAIL No. 2007 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench