Waseem Akram @ Monu Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Waseem Akram @ Monu in a case concerning an alleged GST fraud involving non-existing firm M/s Super Power Industries. The applicant sought bail in Case Crime No. 539 of 2025 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Brahampuri, District Meerut.
The applicant’s counsel submitted that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. It was argued that the FIR concerning the alleged GST fraud did not name the applicant and that he had no connection with the allegations. The applicant also asserted that he was not the owner of M/s Super Power Industries, which had allegedly been declared bogus in November 2021, whereas the FIR was lodged approximately four years later on 04.11.2025.
It was further submitted that the applicant’s name surfaced in the matter through the statement of Sakeel Khan and that he was not a beneficiary in any manner. The applicant was stated to have no criminal history apart from the present case and had been in jail since 05.04.2026. It was also submitted that, considering the heavy pendency of cases, there was no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial.
The prayer for bail was opposed by the learned A.G.A. as well as the counsel appearing for the GST Department.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the record, evidence, nature of allegations and submissions of the parties, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the High Court allowed the bail application and directed that Waseem Akram @ Monu be released on bail on execution of a personal bond and furnishing two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
The bail was made subject to conditions including that the applicant would not tamper with evidence, pressurise or intimidate prosecution witnesses, and would appear before the trial court on the dates fixed unless his personal presence was exempted. He was also prohibited from committing a similar offence and from making any inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts of the case for the purpose of dissuading them from disclosing such facts to the Court or police.
The Court further directed verification of the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties before their acceptance. In case of breach of any of the conditions, the trial court was given liberty to cancel the bail.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to disposal of the bail application and would have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
FULL TEXT OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel appearing for the GST Department and learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record of the case.
The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 539 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Brahampuri, District- Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court concerned.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. The present FIR has been lodged regarding the GST fraud allegedly committed by non existing firm namely M/s Super Power Industries. The applicant is not named in the FIR. It is next submitted that applicant is having no concern with the allegations levelled against him and he has not committed any offence as alleged by prosecution. It is next submitted that the applicant is not the owner of the said firm. The said firm was declared bogus in the month of November, 2021 and the present FIR was lodged after laps of about four years on 4.11.2025. Name of the applicant surfaced in the present matter in the statement of Sakeel Khan. The applicant is not the beneficiary in any manner. Apart from the present case, the applicant is not having any other criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 05.04.2026. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for the GST Department.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record, evidence and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Waseem Akram @ Monu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v). 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 or tamper with the evidence.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
