Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73099 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2239 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohammad Tarik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Diwan Saifullah Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard Sri N. I. Jafari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yagvalkya Pandey, learned AGA for the State-Respondent and perused the record. The present bail application has been moved on behalf of accused- applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 282 of 2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-C, 66-D of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Khekra, District Baghpat. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case crime number. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant has surfaced during the investigation. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the amount shown to have been recovered from the applicant accused has been fabricated by the police to get credit for hastily unreaveling the alleged incident and the alleged recovery has been shown to be fake by implicating the applicant/accused. It is not all possible for the accused to get an ATM Card from the bank and withdrawn a lump sum amount of Rs. 20 Lacs from the bank accounts by activating mobile banking facility without the account holder. In this case, the accused has been picked up by the police from the applicant's house on 01.10.2204 and was presented before the court on 05.10.2024, showing fake recovery on 04.10.2024. This is a direct proof of the false and conspirational action of the police. The absence of any independent witness at the time of arrest of the applicant/accused also raises questions on the working style of the police. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that the confessional statement of the applicant recorded by the Investigating officer during the course of the investigation cannot be made the foundation of the conviction of the applicant in the absence of any other incriminating evidence. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kashmira Singh Vs. The State of M.P. reported in AIR 1952 (SC) 159 and the case of Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1964 (SC) 1184. In the present case, except for one section 338 BNS, all the sections are punishable with imprisonment for 7 years and all the sections are tri-able by the magistrate. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.10.2024. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, the bail has been prayed for. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. He submits that accused/applicant in fraudulently activating Google Pay regarding the informant's bank account and therefore by applying for an ATM Card from the Punjab National Bank Account obtaining the said ATM in the name of the applicant, Praveen Sharma collecting the same and withdrawing Rs. 20 Lacs from the informant's account. The crime is of serious nature. The possibility of the accused absconding and tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out if bail is granted. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima-facie, the involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence. The case laws relied upon do not help the applicant. In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case. Order Date :- 6.5.2025/pks Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad