Allahabad High Court
Karam Allahi vs State Of U.P. on 13 October, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:182222
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12019 of 2024
Karam Allahi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Atharva Dixit, Aushim Luthra, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Pranav Tiwary, Advocate holding brief of Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This is third bail application of the applicant. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 09.07.2021 and 18.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 16416 of 2021 and 49706 of 2021.
4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Karam Allahi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 129 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 4/20/21/25 of Indian Telegraph Act, Police Station Phase-3 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that against the order dated 18.11.2022 rejecting the second bail application of the applicant in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 49706 of 2021 (Karam Allahi Vs. State of U.P. and Another) the applicant preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1485 / 2023 (Karam Allahi Vs. State of U.P. and Another) which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner in renewing his prayer for bail at the appropriate stage and it was provided that any renewed prayer for bail shall be examined by the court concerned on its own merits and in accordance with law vide order dated 10.02.2023 by the Apex Court, the same reads as under:-
"Upon our expressing reservations in entertaining the prayer of the petitioner for bail at this stage, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw with liberty for the petitioner in renewing his prayer for bail at the appropriate stage.
Permission granted.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed while providing that any renewed prayer for bail shall be examined by the Court concerned on its own merits and in accordance with law."
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as such a fresh prayer for bail in the present third bail application has been made which may be considered and decided. It is submitted that there is no record to show that any loss has been incurred to the Government till date. While placing the first information report of the matter it is submitted that the same was lodged against Basit Farooq Dar and Karam Allahi (the applicant) and an unknown person. It is submitted that charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant, Basit Farooq Dar, Aashiya Afzal Lone and Mustafa Mohd. Ali Sheikh for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 4, 20, 21, 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It is further submitted that the trial in the present matter has started in which the statement of three witnesses have been recorded. The statement of two witnesses namely Ankit Shukla as P.W.-1 and Ziaur Rahman as P.W.-2 are annexed as Annexures- 11 & 12 to the affidavit respectively whereas the statement of Rupesh Chirde as P.W.-3 is annexed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 07.08.2024. While placing the statement of P.W.-3 is it argued that the said witness has not stated about the amount of financial loss to the Government. It is submitted that the trial is going on which has not yet concluded and will take time and thus prayer for bail of the applicant be considered in as much as the prosecution has proposed to examine a total of 14 witnesses but only 03 witnesses have been examined till date. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 08 of the second supplementary affidavit dated 10.03.2025 and is in jail since 10.02.2021.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is third bail application of the applicant. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 09.07.2021 and 18.11.2022. It is further submitted that the applicant was involved in illegal activity which pose serious threat to the national security and also monetary loss to the Government. It is submitted that the act of the applicant was of setting up a telephone exchange and receiving calls from foreign countries at his exchange which were then converted in a local call shown to be from the numbers of within the country and then forwarded and connected to persons within the country and from the said act it could not be known as to who and from where was the actual caller. Learned counsel for the State submitted that as per his instructions 07 prosecution witnesses have been examined which would go to show that trial is in progress diligently and there is no slackness in the trial. It is submitted that even perusal of the statement of P.W.-3 would go to show that plenty of instruments for setting up telephone exchange were recovered which were in working condition. Through it the said illegal activity was going on. It is submitted that there is no new & fresh ground in the present third bail application.
8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2021. The second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2022 in which the order rejecting the first bail application of the applicant is already quoted, the same reads as under:-
"Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Karam Allahi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 129 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 4/20/21/25 Indian Telegraph Act, registered at P.S. Phase-3 NOIDA, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.
The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16416 of 2021 (Karam Allahi vs. State of U.P.) was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.7.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of surmises and conjectures and there is no credible evidence collected against him. It is further argued that while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant this Court had noted the arguments of learned counsel for the State that the work of the applicant was posing serious threat to the country and the law enforcing agencies were unable to perform their work properly due to the working of the set up, the government exchequer has suffered a huge financial loss and also that by by-passing calls through the set up of the applicant they remained unmonitored which was causing great threat to the national security. It is argued that charge sheet dated 24.4.2021 in the matter has been submitted in which no such fact has surfaced during investigation. It is argued while placing para-36 of the affidavit that no charge till date has been framed in the matter. It is further argued that there is no charge against the applicant with regards to National Security Act or UAPA. It is argued that in so far as the offences under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, there is no credible evidence to connect him with the offences. The offence under the Telegraph Act are also trivial offences. It is argued that co-accused Mustafa and Basit Farooq Dar have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide order dated 29.9.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32143 of 2021 and vide order dated 26.5.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47366 of 2021 respectively. The copies of the said bail orders have been placed before the Court for perusal. It is argued while placing supplementary affidavit dated 19.1.2022 that even the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation does not go to show the actual amount as alleged to have been the loss suffered by the Government. It is argued that as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be granted.
Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order by this Court. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter is dated 24.4.2021 on which cognizance was taken on 8.5.2021 by the court concerned. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected after about 2 months of the order taking cognizance. It is argued that the matter was heard at length and then the first bail application of the applicant was rejected. Learned State counsel has further argued that the applicant was arrested and there was a huge recovery of electronic instruments and gadgets through which illegal telephone exchange was set up and calls from foreign countries were being routed in India through internet by which the actual number of caller was not traceable. The same was posing serious threat to the nation as the agencies of the country could not decipher as to who and from where was the actual call landing in the country. It is argued that there was huge recovery from the possession of the applicant. It is further argued that there is no fresh and new ground pleaded and argued in the bail application. All the grounds as argued by learned counsel for the applicant were considered and also were available at the time of decision of the first bail application. Even the charge sheet was filed around two months prior to the decision of the first bail application. The prayer for bail thus be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed orders on 09.7.2021. The charge sheet in the matter was filed on 24.4.2021 which is about two months prior to the rejection of the first bail application. New ground of co-accused Mustafa and Basit Farooq Dar being granted bail in the present matter, is not of any help to the applicant as the case of the said accused persons is distinguishable from the case of the applicant as is apparent from the reading of the said orders itself. The order dated 09.7.2021 rejecting the bail application of the applicant Karam Allahi is quoted herein below:-
"Matter taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Karam Allahi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 129 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 4, 20, 21, 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, registered at P.S. Phase-3, Noida District Gautam Budh Nagar.
The prosecution case as per the first information report is that a joint raid was conducted at a premise in NOIDA by the Department of Telecom, UP ATS and UP Police as per the input of Delhi LSA, Department of Telecom regarding running of illegal international telecom set up and during the raid the raiding team found that there was a regular establishment set up which was illegally routing calls from foreign countries to India. A total of 800 SIP channels were found running at the site. The illegal international call set up was terminating foreign calls in India by bypassing the legal international and national gateway and displaying CLI No. 91-1206901700 on Indian telephone numbers. Huge number of outgoing calls from the set up landing on Indian telephone/mobile numbers were discovered. Appliances were recovered which were in a running condition and the exchange was working in routing international calls into India through the set up. The said articles and appliances mostly of them were in running condition and were duly installed and there were some other articles newly purchased which were to be installed were found. It was assessed that approximately Rs.45 Lacs was the loss to the Government exchequer by the act of the accused by bypassing the legal international gateways. The amount was as such calculated approximately and the total financial loss was under calculation. The applicant was arrested from the spot. One Basit Farooq Dar was the partner for the business with the applicant which in the name and style of M/s.Beststar BK Enterprises Private Limited in Sector 63, Noida District - Gautam Budh Nagar. It is further mentioned in the FIR that the modus operendi of the accused persons caused huge loss to the government exchequer and the accused gained advantage for themselves dishonestly through fraudulent means. It was further mentioned that such type of calls posed a great threat to the national security as the international calls remained unmonitored by law enforcement agencies. The foreign callers in such calls remain unknown due to display of Indian CLI in place of the original and actual CLI and routing was internet based which was very difficult for the law enforcement agencies of the country to monitor and to trace any suspicious call involved in illegal activities and anti-national activity and thus serious threat to the national security was there due to the same.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has argued that the entire set up as found by the raiding team was suggestive of a business of phone marketing. It is argued that the applicant is a partner in M/S.BKK Enterprises Private Limited. It is further argued that the material as recovered is used for running a departmental portal and not for any other use. The amount of Rs.45 Lacs as mentioned in the first information report is without any basis. It is argued while placing paragraph 12 of the affidavit in support of the bail application that the applicant is a hard working individual and has family to foster. He has started a business venture by establishing his company M/s.Beststar BK Enterprises Pvt. Limited and has started an online marketing business. It is further argued that the said company has not been made as an accused and as such, the first information report suffers from a patent defect as per the settled principles of law. It is argued that no document has been fabricated by the applicant and there was no wrongful loss to anyone and no wrongful gain to the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel has placed paragraph 25 and 26 of the affidavit and argued that the offences under the Indian Telegraph Act are bailable and non-cognizable in nature. It is argued that the applicant is having no criminal history to his credit which though is not pleaded in the bail application but as per the instructions he made a statement for the same. It is argued that the applicant is in jail since 10.2.2021.
Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first information report is a detailed report giving the details of the recovered items in extenso. The set up was found working and there was regular work through the instruments by which huge number of calls had landed and were transferred giving a different CLI number within the country. It is argued that raiding team also found many other appliances which were to be made operational. It is argued that the said set up was posing serious threat to the country and the law enforcement agencies were unable to perform their work properly due to the working of the set up. The government exchequer has suffered huge financial loss also. The calls bypassing through the set up reamained unmonitored which was great threat to the national security. Learned brief holder for the State although did not dispute the fact as per his instructions that the applicant is not having any criminal antecedent. It is lastly argued that prayer for bail be rejected.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that a joint team raided the premises where the applicant was arrested and huge amount of electronic instruments and gadgets were recovered which was in a working condition and the whole set up was in a working condition which was instrumental in illegally routing calls from foreign countries to India through internet by which the actual calling number was not displayed. The said act was an act by which there was a serious threat to national security. Certain other appliances and instruments were recovered which were awaiting to be installed.The activities cannot be termed anything less than an organized crime.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."
The order dated 29.9.2021 granting bail to the co-accused Mustafa by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court reads as under :-
"Heard Sri Anurag Vajpeyi and Ashwini Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA -I, appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further submitted that during the course of investigation name of the applicant came into light in the confessional statement of co-accused Karam Allahi and that is the sole piece of evidence that has been collected against the applicant in the present case and no other substantial piece of evidence was bought to light. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.02.2021. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant Mustafa, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 129 of 2021, under Sections 420/467/468/120-B IPC and section 4/20/21/25 of Indian Telegraph Act, Police Station Phase-3 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
1. The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The concerned Court shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad."
The order dated 26.5.2022 granting bail to the co-accused Basit Farooq Dar by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court reads as under :-
"By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 0129 of 2021 at Police Station Phase III Noida, District G.B. Nagar under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B and Sections 4, 20, 21, 25, Indian Telegraph Act. The applicant is in jail since 23.03.2021.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gautam Budh Nagar on 26.07.2021.
Shri Muddashir Mustaque, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Shamim Uddin Khan, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a technically qualified and a law abiding young citizen of the country who had set up a start up business in the name and style of Beststar BK Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. One Asiya Afzal was also a Director in the aforesaid company along with the applicant. The offending transactions are traceable entirely to the e-mail Id of the principal offender Karam Allahi. The said Karam Allahi is the principal offender who exclusively operated the said e-mail Id. The incriminating articles/equipment were ordered by and recovered from the said Karam Allahi. Co-accused Karam Allahi admitted that he had fabricated documents to obtain payments from the applicant. The applicant is not a perpetrator but in fact a victim of the fraud. The applicant cannot be linked to the principal offenders Mustafa or Karam Allahi and is not liable for their criminal acts. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit transaction. The applicant had set up a business with legitimate aims and lawful objects and was pursuing the same in a legal manner. The applicant became a convenient scapegoat as the principal offenders wanted to shield themselves by using the business name of the applicant's company as a cover. During the course of investigation no offending transaction or call was identified which could be connected to any possible threat to the security to the State. The chargesheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is not required any further investigation. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who joined the investigation at the very initial stage and cooperated with the investigation officer. Even if the prosecution case is taken on its face value (without prejudice to the defence of the applicant) the offence is an economic offence which can be compensated by financial penalties. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the principal offender namely Karam Allahi. The applicant is not a flight risk and there is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.
I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicants is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Basit Farooq Dar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
It is pointed out that the applicant is resident of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. He may be unable to obtain local sureties.
The trial court shall accept sureties of persons belonging to Jammu & Kashmir or from any other part of India. The courts and authorities in the State of Jammu & Kashmir are expected to cooperate and ensure expeditious verification of sureties take place."
After having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the material available on record and the distinction as has already been drawn in the orders of said co-accused and also looking to the role of the applicant, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for interference in this second bail application to release the applicant on bail.
Therefore, the second bail application of the applicant is rejected."
9. The applicant then preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court against rejection of the second bail application which was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file bail application which was directed to be decided in accordance with law. Thus this is third bail application of the applicant before this Court. The trial in the matter is in progress and as per the statement of learned counsel for the State seven prosecution witnesses have been examined, the same in no manner goes to show that the trial is at standstill stage but to the contrary shows that it is proceeding diligently. The statement of P.W.-3 goes to show that ample amount of appliances & instruments were recovered from the place and also there were various digital acts done to create false and fictitious gateways to receive calls from foreign countries and convert them into local numbers and then forward it within the country for communication, the same was serious threat posed to the nation. No ground for bail exists.
10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
11. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Samit Gopal,J.) October 13, 2025 AS Rathore