HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9600 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant; and Learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.78 of 2026, under Sections 316(5), 352 and 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023, Police Station – Beconganj, District Kanpur Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the aforesaid case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged against the brother of the applicant. The applicant has no role to play in the said case. The brother of the applicant, Mohammad Nadeem Ansari has a separate GST registration and his business is distinct from that of the applicant. Due to the misconduct of the brother of the applicant, the applicant has been falsely implicated in four other cases in which the applicant is on bail. Learned counsel has placed reliance on an order of this Court passed in NABAIL No. 9431 of 2026 for Case Crime No. 71 of 2026 where, under similar allegations, this Court, taking note of the submissions of the applicant, had granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant's name has been introduced quite belatedly during investigation even when the application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS had been moved with excessive delay. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohammad Waseem .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the applicant and his brother, including the other accused, by hatching a conspiracy have cheated the informant and other similarly situated persons. The applicant is trying to evade responsibility solely by contending that he has a separate GST registration. The name of the applicant has surfaced in the investigation and he may be required for custodial interrogation and recoveries. He may not be considered for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the explanation given by the applicant with respect to his criminal antecedents. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties. 6. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of an application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS and the applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant has surfaced in the investigation. The allegation against the co-accused, who is the brother of the applicant, is of cheating the informant who is a lady who was getting her ornaments made at New Rahnuma Jewellers said to be the firm of the co-accused Mohammad Nadeem Ansari and the informant states that she had given two sets of ornaments weighing sixty seven grams of gold which the co-accused had promised to convert by making three separate sets of ornaments for the same weight of gold in a new design. The said gold has supposedly been misappropriated by the co-accused. The counsel for the applicant has specifically stated in paragraph No. 20 that he has a separate GST registration in the name of Mubashara Jewellers bearing GSTIN No.09AHIPA6137H2ZE. 7. From the perusal of the material on record it appears that Nadeem, Wasim (the applicant) and Rahil alias Taslim are three real brothers who earlier had been running the business jointly in the name and style of Rahnuma Jewellers. The said shop was later divided into three separate shops with New Rahnuma Jewellers belonging to Nadeem, Rahil Jewellers belonging to Taslim alias Rahil and Mubashara Jewellers belonging to Wasim. In the opinion of the Court, taking note of the allegations made in the FIR and the entire facts and circumstances as appearing from the record, the implication of the applicant may be on account of running a similar business and to create pressure on the co- accused Mohammad Nadeem. Applicant is not a previous convict and has NABAIL No. 9600 of 2026 2 explained his criminal antecedents satisfactorily. In the other cases also he appears to have been implicated subsequently due to the misconduct of his brother Mohammad Nadeem. 8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 9. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. 10. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Mohammad Waseem, involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court concerned, with the following conditions:- i. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; iv. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 12. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case. September 30, 2026 Kushal NABAIL No. 9600 of 2026 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad