IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VARANASI, U.P.
BAIL APPLICATION. / 2024
In the matter of:
ASIF NASIM …
Applicant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. …Respondent
FIR No.: 0104/2022
Case no. ____/2022
Sections:406, 420 of IPC
P.S. Cantt
District: Varanasi

INDEX
Sl. No. Particulars Page No.

1. Regular Bail Application under section 439 of Cr.P.C.,

1973 on behalf of Applicant along with the affidavit.

2. ANNEXURE A-1
True Copy of the FIR along with the
Chargesheet
3. ANNEXURE A-2
Copy of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of
Allahabad dated 01.07.2024 in CRIMINAL MISC.
WRIT PETITION No. 2230 of 2022 filed by the
Company of the Applicant.
4. Memo of Pairokar

Applicant/A

Date: .__.2024
Place: Varanasi
ADVOCATE
 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE,
VARANASI, U.P.
BAIL APPLICATION. / 2024

In the matter of:

ASIF NASIM …Applicant

Versus

STATE OF U.P. …Respondent

FIR No.: 0104/2022

Case no. ____/2022
Sections:406, 420 of IPC
P.S. Cantt
District: Varanasi

REGULAR BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C.,

1973 ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ASIF NASIM

Most Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the Applicant/accused, namely, Asif Nasim, S/o. Nasim Ahmad was

arrested on 01.11.2021 and has been under judicial custody since

01.11.2021, for the offences under sections: 406, 420 of IPC, 1860 in

connection with the FIR no. 0104 of 2022, registered at Police Station

Cantt, Varanasi, filed by the Complainant namely, Abhimanyu Singh

(hereinafter referred to as Complainant). A true copy of the FIR along

with the Chargesheet is annexed herein as ANNEXURE A-1 for the kind

perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

2. It is pertinent to mention herein that some opportunistic members of the

public took advantage of the company’s reputation, posing as authorized

agents of the company and engaging in fraudulent activities to swindle

innocent people by fraudulently executing a sale deed in the name of

 the company hereby highlighting a pattern of deception and exploitation,

with both appointed representatives and unauthorized individuals

exploiting the company’s standing for illicit gain ultimately harming

unsuspecting investors. Therefore, several FIRs have been registered

against the Applicant/accused in several other districts of other states,

and in connection with those FIR’s the Applicant/accused has been behind

bars for the past 2 years and 8 months. It is pertinent to mention that

some land leaders/team leaders/agents of the abovementioned company

committed fraudulent activities with a dishonest intention to deceive the

gullible investors causing a huge loss to the Applicant/accused.

3. The present dispute revolves around a series of facts that primarily

constitute a civil or contractual disagreement between the Company and

its investors. However, due to multiple criminal proceedings initiated

against the Company, its sister concerns, and its officials, and the intense

investigations conducted by four different agencies including the UP

State Police, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Economic Offences

Wing, and Enforcement Directorate, the Company has faced challenges in

resolving the issues with the aggrieved parties despite its willingness to

do so.

4. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the assets, bank accounts,

offices, and records of the Petitioner Company and its affiliated entities

have been under seizure since 2018. Furthermore, the Managing Director,

Asif Nasim, has been in custody since November 1, 2021.

5. That the fact of the matter remains that no offence has been committed by

the Applicant/ accused, Company or any of its Directors and that the

present dispute is nothing short of real estate business transaction which

went slightly unprofitable due to the COVID 19 pandemic, however, in

 view of the multiple criminal proceedings, the Petitioner Company despite

its bona fide intention of repaying its investors and regaining their trust has

been unable to do so which has led to detriment of not just the applicant/

accused and Petitioner Company but also its investors.

6. In pursuit of its genuine intention, the Petitioner Company resolved its

dispute with customers during the ongoing criminal proceedings by

delivering land parcels as committed under their respective agreements

with the Company. Most of these FIRs have been filed by informants who

are not investors in the Petitioner Company. Despite this, the Respondent

Authorities have proceeded with registering these FIRs without

conducting any preliminary inquiry. This action is in violation of the

principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v.

Government of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 7 SCC 164, which mandates a

preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in cases where the

allegations do not disclose a cognizable offense.

7. As previously stated, the Applicant’s company has settled approximately

75% of its liabilities by transferring plots and granting possession to its

investors. It possesses adequate liquidated and unliquidated assets to settle

the remaining dues. However, due to the current precarious circumstances,

it has been unable to fulfill its obligations, causing significant harm to the

general public.

8. That the Applicant/accused states that he is prepared to reconcile the

outstanding amount owed to the investors who have entrusted funds to the

company for the acquisition of plots across different projects of Shine

City Infra projects Private Limited (SIPL). It is noteworthy to mention

that several persons have lodged FIRs against the company and later on

got possession of the land for which they have invested.

9. That the Chargesheet has been filed in the present matter by the EOW.

10. That it is important to emphasis that the Hon’ble High Court of

Allahabad in its order dated 01.07.2024, the Hon’ble High Court of

Allahabad granted leave to apply for bail to the Applicant/Accused Asif

Nasim. The court also directed the Enforcement Directorate to dispose of

the company’s assets to liquidate the claims of genuine customers in

accordance with the law. This decision is significant as it not only allows

the directors to apply for bail but also mandates the liquidation of assets

to address the claims of genuine customers, potentially expediting the

resolution of the case and providing relief to affected parties. Copy of the

order of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad dated 01.07.2024 in

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 2230 of 2022 filed by the

Company of the Applicant is annexed herein as ANNEXURE A-2 for the

kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

11.In light of the aforesaid circumstances and the recent order of the

Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad dated 01.07.2024, the

Applicant/accused has no other alternate, efficacious remedy available to

him except to approach this Hon’ble Court for seeking Regular bail under

section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection

with the FIR bearing No. 0104 of 2022, registered at Police Station Cantt,

Varanasi, on the following grounds, which are without prejudice to each

other:

GROUNDS

A. BECAUSE the Applicant/accused has been falsely implicated

in the present matter and the allegations levelled in the FIR
have no relation with the Applicant/accused.
B. BECAUSE the Applicant/accused has been incarcerated since
01.11.2021 and is facing pre-trial conviction in the present
matter as the Chargesheet has already been filed and nothing
material has been found out against the Applicant/accused. It is
important to highlight that the Applicant is currently facing
severe repercussions due to a pre-trial conviction which
essentially constitutes a form of punishment prior to any formal
determination of guilt. Notably, the grant of bail is founded on
the principle that the Applicant/accused is presumed innocent
until proven guilty. As such, the Applicant is entitled to
freedom and the opportunity to adequately prepare his defense
against the charges brought forth. Additionally, it is imperative
to recognize that detaining an individual without a prompt trial
contradicts the fundamental concept of personal liberty, which
is an inherent human right.

C. BECAUSE the bare perusal of the FIR shows that not even a
single allegation is levelled against the Applicant /accused, the
allegation is levelled against the company as mentioned in the
FIR, but the company was not made party to the matter. It is
stated that any individual who has perpetrated the commission
of an offence, along with the company can be made an
accused, only if there is sufficient evidence of his active role
coupled with criminal intent. Furthermore, there are no specific
allegations in the FIR against the Applicant/accused and
looking at the averments with respect to the role played by the
Applicant/accused, no specific role of the Applicant/accused is
made out and hence the Applicant/accused cannot be arrayed
as an accused.
D. BECAUSE even the bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that
no ingredients of the penal sections involved could be made
out directly or indirectly as against the Applicant/accused. It
is to be noted that the FIR was filed against certain
individuals who, who were in contact with the complainant for
the sale negotiation of the aforementioned plot.
E. BECAUSE the Applicant/accused held a nominal directorship
 role within the Shine City Infra Project. It's crucial to recognize
that merely occupying the position of a director does not
automatically imply that the individual actively performed the
duties associated with the role. This observation has been
consistently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
numerous judgments. Further, it is pertinent to mention that the
operations of the company were facilitated through numerous
team leaders and agents utilizing schemes and investment
proposals on behalf of the company. This setup involves a
hierarchical system of sales and investment, with agents and
team leaders playing pivotal roles in disseminating the
company’s offerings to potential investors. That it is to be
further noted that some unsocial elements of society
impersonated themselves to be team leaders and agents of the
company to lure the Clients to invest in the Applicant’s
company but in fact, the Clients were cheated by those unsocial
elements in the name of investment done Shine City Infra
Projects.
F. BECAUSE the company experienced significant success
through its innovative business strategies and diligent efforts,
which led to a surge in its reputation. However, during this
period, certain appointed agents and team leaders knowingly
deceived unsuspecting investors by promising plots, movable
and immovable properties, and lands associated with the
company's projects, only to misappropriate the invested funds
for their personal gain. It is pertinent to mention that the
Applicant/accused has neither any role nor any liability on
behalf of the agents who cheated investors for their wrongful
personal gain/benefit in the name of the investment in Shine
City Infra Projects.
G. BECAUSE numerous complaints and FIRs were filed by
aggrieved investors against the company. In addition to these
individuals, opportunistic members of the public took
advantage of the company’s widespread reputation, posing as
authorized agents and engaging in fraudulently executing a sale
 deed in the mane of the company hereby highlighting a pattern
of deception and exploitation with both appointed
representatives and unauthorized individuals exploiting the
company’s standing for illicit gain, ultimately harming
unsuspecting investors.
H. BECAUSE the company had already cleared 75% of its
liability by providing plot possession to its investors. Notably,
since the banking accounts of the Company has been frozen by
the respective authorities it has become difficult or virtually
impossible to clear the liabilities towards the investors in a free
and peaceful atmosphere. However, It is pertinent to mention
that several people who lodged an FIR against the company
have already been provided the possession of the land for
which their respective FIRs were lodged.
I. BECAUSE the Applicant/accused namely Asif Nasim, on
account of him occupying a titular position of a director,
lacked awareness of the company's operations to the extent that
their own representatives or team leaders deceived the general
public using the company's name, spurred by its growing
popularity. Upon becoming aware of the situation, the
Applicant in the capacity of the Director issued verbal
warnings and notices to the implicated employees.
Nevertheless, the situation escalated beyond their control.
J. BECAUSE the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19
pandemic aggravated the company’s financial troubles,
resulting in further harm to its reputation and operations.
K. BECAUSE the Applicant/accused herein is serving in Jail at
Varanasi since 2 years 8 months and it is essential to scrutinize
the veracity and credibility of the allegations levied against the
Applicant/accused as the FIRs herein have been filed hastily as
well as motivated by ulterior motives, such as personal
vendettas or professional rivalries.
L. BECAUSE neither the present Applicant/accused nor the
company has absconded, thereby it is stated that the
Complainant has not been cheated by the Applicant/accused or
 the company.
M.BECAUSE in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1971) 4 SCC
308, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that:

“The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not

jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of
fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice
or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating
offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the
petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the
Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only
illustrative.”

N. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar

Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, whilst dealing with the
question of grant of bail in economic offences, stated that:

“90. What is left for us now to discuss are the economic

offences. The question for consideration is whether it
should be treated as a class of its own or otherwise.
This issue has already been dealt with by this Court
in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [P.
Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020)
13 SCC 791 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 646] , after taking
note of the earlier decisions governing the field. The
gravity of the offence, the object of the Special Act, and
the attending circumstances are a few of the factors to
be taken note of, along with the period of sentence.
After all, an economic offence cannot be classified as
such, as it may involve various activities and may differ
from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable
on the part of the court to categorise all the offences
into one group and deny bail on that basis. Suffice it to
state that law, as laid down in the following judgments,
will govern the field:
91.P.Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [P.
Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020)
13 SCC 791 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 646] : (SCC pp. 804-
805, para 23)
“23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments
cited on either side including the one rendered by the
Constitution Bench [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of
Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] of
this Court, it could be deduced that the basic
jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same
inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is
the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the
opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while
considering the same the gravity of the offence is an
aspect which is required to be kept in view by the
Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be
gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in
each case. Keeping in view the consequences that
would befall on the society in cases of financial
irregularities, it has been held that even economic
offences would fall under the category of “grave
offence” and in such circumstance while considering
the application for bail in such matters, the Court will
have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature
of allegation made against the accused. One of the
circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is
also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the
offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such
consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a
factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod
test that would be normally applied. In that regard
what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the
allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a
rule that bail should be denied in every case since there
is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed
by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence
provide so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is
that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge,
the precedent of another case alone will not be the
basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may
have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the
consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on
the facts involved therein and securing the presence of
the accused to stand trial.”
92. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,
(2012) 1 SCC 40 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 26 : (2012) 2
SCC (L&S) 397] : (SCC pp. 62-64, paras 39-40 & 46)
“39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both
the courts have refused the request for grant of bail on
two grounds : the primary ground is that the offence
alleged against the accused persons is very serious
involving deep-rooted planning in which, huge
financial loss is caused to the State exchequer; the
secondary ground is that of the possibility of the
accused persons tampering with the witnesses. In the
present case, the charge is that of cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property and forgery
for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged
document. The punishment for the offence is
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge
may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment
to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also
bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining
whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the
charge and the severity of the punishment should be
taken into consideration.
40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the
 discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated,
to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of
each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail
is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of
the community against the accused. The primary
purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the
accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the
burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the
same time, to keep the accused constructively in the
custody of the court, whether before or after conviction,
to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the
court and be in attendance thereon whenever his
presence is required.
***
46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are
charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We
are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged,
if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country.
At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that
the investigating agency has already completed
investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed
before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore,
their presence in the custody may not be necessary for
further investigation. We are of the view that the
appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial
on stringent conditions in order to ally the
apprehension expressed by CBI.”

O. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan

Singh v. State (1978) 1 SCC 118, whilst dealing with the
question of grant of bail, stated that:

“24. Section 439(1) CrPC of the new Code, on the other

hand, confers special powers on the High Court or the
Court of Session in respect of bail. Unlike under Section
437(1) there is no ban imposed under Section 439(1),
CrPC against granting of bail by the High Court or the
Court of Session to persons accused of an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is,
however, legitimate to suppose that the High Court or
the Court of Session will be approached by an accused
only after he has failed before the Magistrate and after
the investigation has progressed throwing light on the
evidence and circumstances implicating the accused.
Even so, the High Court or the Court of Session will
have to exercise its judicial discretion in considering the
question of granting of bail under Section 439(1) CrPC
of the new Code. The overriding considerations in
granting bail to which we adverted to earlier and which
are common both in the case of Section 437(1) and
Section 439(1) CrPC of the new Code are the nature and
gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is
 committed; the position and the status of the accused
with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the
likelihood, of the accused fleeing from justice; of
repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being
faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the
case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case
as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds
which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be
exhaustively set out.”

P. BECAUSE the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR
2012 SC 830, wherein it is stated that:

“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid

down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to
secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial
by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is
neither punitive d nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty
must be considered a punishment, unless it is required
to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial
when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal
respect to the principle that punishment begins after
conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent
until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that
detention in custody pending completion of trial could be
a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity
demands that some unconvicted persons should be held
in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the
trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In
this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of
personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any
person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon
which, he has not been convicted or that in any
circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon
only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if
left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary
circumstances.”

Q. BECAUSE the Applicant/accused does not have any criminal

antecedents and that the Applicant/accused has never been
involved in any case of this nature except the false and
baseless implication in the instant case, who otherwise belongs
to a respectable family, having roots in the society.
R. BECAUSE the Applicant/Accused has elderly and ailing
parents at home who require constant care and attention. Given
their advanced age and fragile health, they depend entirely on
 the Applicant/Accused for their daily needs and well-being.
There is no one else available to provide the necessary support
and companionship they need during this critical time.
S. That the Applicant/Accused craves leave to add, alter, amend,
modify, delete and/or substitute any of the contents/grounds of
the Application, as and when required.
T. That the Applicant/accused is a permanent resident of the
above- mentioned address and gives an undertaking not to
hamper the witness or touch the evidence and also will not
misuse the liberty of regular bail.
U. That the Applicant/accused is ready to abide by all the
conditions at the time of enlarging him on regular bail and also
will comply with all the orders which will be passed by this
Hon’ble Court while granting him regular bail.
V. That the Applicant/accused undertakes to present himself
before the police/court as and when required.
W.That the present application has not been filed before any other
Court.
PRAYER

It is, therefore most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it
may be graciously pleased:-
a. To enlarge the Applicant/accused on Regular bail in connection
with the above-mentioned FIR.
b. To pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the interest of justice.
And for this, the Applicant/accused shall ever pray.

Date: .0__.2024
Place: Varanasi
Applicant/Pairokar
Through

ASHISH DEEP VERMA|| SANJAY SRIVASTAVA || KAMYA RITU

VERMA|| HARSH SINGH || JEEVIKA DHYANI || MIR ADNAN ZAHOOR
|| VIRAL VAIBHAV || VAASAV MITTAL
ADVOCATES
 Vidhisastras-Advocates & Solicitors
1201, 12th floor, Eros Corporate Tower,
Nehru Place, Delhi-110019
E-mail- ashish@vidhisastras.com
Phone: 8130441280

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE,

VARANASI, U.P.
BAIL APPLICATION. / 2024

In the matter of:

ASIF NASIM …Applicant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. …Respondent
FIR No.: 0104/2022
Case no. ____/2022
Sections:406, 420 of IPC
P.S. Cantt
District: Varanasi
I ___________________, S/o. ________________________________,
R/o.___________________________________do hereby solemnly affirm and
state as follows:
1. That I am the relative of the accused in the present case and am well
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. Start the contents of this bail application and its epidemic have been read
by me and do hereby fully understand its contents.
3. That the statements made in the paragraph are true to my knowledge and
derived from the elementary gods of this case and the statements made in
the rest of the paragraphs are my humble submissions before this Hon’ble
Court.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Varanasi on ________ day and the contents of the above
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT