MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Case Type: Miscellaneous Application

Date of Judgment: 19-05-2022

Preview image for MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Full Judgment Text

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  I.A. NO.71580 OF 2022  IN/AND  M.A. NO.766 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.39 OF 2022 MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN      ...APPLICANT/ PETITIONER   VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH            ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.188 OF 2022 O R D E R  1. Both   the   writ   petition   being   Writ   Petition   (Criminal) No.188   of   2022,   as   well   as   the   Interlocutory   Application No.71580 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.766 of 2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date: 2022.05.19 14:27:27 IST Reason: in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 39 of 2022 have been filed by the 1 petitioner seeking interim bail in Case Crime No.70 of 2020, registered with Police Station Kotwali, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) [hereinafter referred to as “the said FIR No.70 of 2020”).   A direction is also sought directing the respondent to seek prior permission of this Court before   arresting   the   petitioner   in   any   other   case.       In   Writ Petition (Criminal) No.188 of 2022, an additional prayer is also made for quashing and setting aside the proceedings qua the petitioner in the said FIR No.70 of 2020.   The facts giving rise to the present matter are as under: 2. 3. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No.39 of nd 2022 in this Court on 22  January, 2022.  It was contended in the said writ petition that in all 87 criminal cases/FIRs have been filed against the petitioner.  It was further contended that it was only after the present Government came into power in 2017, that 84 out of these 87 criminal cases/FIRs have been filed against the petitioner.   It was submitted that as on the 2 date of filing of the said writ petition, he had secured bail in 84 cases, including 3 cases wherein orders have been passed by this Court.  It was the contention of the petitioner that the said criminal cases/FIRs were filed by the Ruling Party with   mala fide   intention.   It was further submitted that though in three criminal cases, the bail applications were pending and heard, but were either adjourned or not decided thereby depriving the petitioner of his personal liberty.   The said writ petition came th up before this Court on 8  February, 2022, when the same was disposed of by the following order: “This writ petition has been filed for grant of interim bail to the petitioner in the following cases: (i) Case Crime No.02/2018, dated 25.04.2018 registered under sections 409, 420, 120B, 201 IPC and Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,   1988   at   Police   Station   SIT, Sadar, Lucknow, UP.; (ii) Case   Crime   No.79/2019   dated 01.02.2019 under Sections­500, 505 I.P.C.   registered   at   Police   Station   – Hazratganj, Lucknow, UP; and  3 (iii) Case Crime No. 312/2019 dated 19.08.2019 under sections 420, 467, 468,   471,   447,   201   &  120­B   I.P.C. and   Section   3   of   The   Prevention   of Damage  to  the   Public   Property   Act, 1984   registered   at   Police   Station Azeem Nagar, Rampur, UP. Mr.   Kapil   Sibal,   learned   Senior Counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioner submitted   that   FIRs   are   registered   just before elections and most of them relate to events   that   occurred   long   back.       The applications   filed   for   bail   are   being adjourned and the petitioner is suffering in jail   due   to   FIRs   registered   on   false   and frivolous grounds. The   petitioner   is   at   liberty   to approach the concerned court and request for   expeditious   disposal   of   the   bail applications.  Needless   to   mention   that   the   court shall   dispose   of   the   bail   applications expeditiously.  The   writ   petition   is   dismissed. Pending application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of.” 4. It appears that thereafter the petitioner was granted bail in two cases.   However, in one case, i.e., pertaining to Case th Crime No.312 of 2019, dated 19  August, 2019,   for the   offences 4 punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 201 & 120B IPC and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to the   Public   Property   Act,   1984,   registered   at   Police   Station Azeem Nagar, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the said FIR No.312 of 2019”), though the matter was heard by th the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 4   December, 2021 and closed for orders, no orders were passed.  Thereafter, an   application   came   to   be   filed   on   behalf   of   the   State   for bringing out certain developments.  On account of this, the said matter   got   prolonged   endlessly,   resulting   in   the   matter   not being   decided   and   thereby   depriving   the   petitioner   of   his personal liberty.   As such, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No.766 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.39 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “the said M.A.”). The petitioner in the said M.A. had prayed for grant of interim bail with regard to the said FIR No.312 of 2019.  The said M.A. came to be filed rd on 23  April, 2022.   5 5. It appears that one other FIR No.70 of 2020 was already th registered on 18   March, 2020.   However, the petitioner was not named in the said FIR No.70 of 2020.  A charge­sheet after th investigation in the said FIR No.70 of 2020 was filed on 10 September, 2020, wherein the wife of the petitioner and one clerk of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari were arrayed as accused persons.   A letter was addressed by the complainant to the th Investigating Officer (“I.O.” for short) on 24  April, 2022, stating therein that though the petitioner was also liable to be made accused in the said FIR No.70 of 2020, no action was taken against him.   6. The said M.A. was orally mentioned before this Court on th th 26  April, 2022 and on 29  April, 2022, seeking listing of the nd said M.A.  On 2  May, 2022, though the said M.A. was listed, the same could not be taken up and was directed to be listed on th 6  May, 2022.  7. It appears that during the pendency of the said M.A., an application was made by I.O. to the Additional Chief Judicial 6 th Magistrate, Rampur on 5   May, 2022, seeking summoning of the petitioner in FIR No. 70 of 2020.   The learned Magistrate passed an order summoning the petitioner on the very same th day, i.e., on 5  May, 2022 in respect of the said FIR No.70 of 2020.   th 8. When the said M.A. was listed on 6   May, 2022, it was submitted before this Court by the respondent­State that the judgment  had   already  been  reserved  by  the   Allahabad   High Court in relation to the bail application in respect of the said FIR No.312 of 2019 and as such, the matter was adjourned to th 11  May, 2022.   9. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur passed th an order on 6   May, 2022 and arrayed the petitioner as an accused in FIR No. 70 of 2020 and on the very same day, passed   an   order   remanding   the   petitioner   to   custody. Accordingly, the Custody Warrant was issued, directing Sitapur Jail Superintendent to keep the petitioner in custody.   7 10. In light of the subsequent developments implicating the petitioner in FIR No. 70 of 2020, the present writ petition came to   be   filed   by   the   petitioner   being   Writ   Petition   (Criminal) No.188 of 2022 vide Diary No.14644 of 2022, seeking prayers as stated above.   An Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 71580 of 2022 was also moved in the said M.A. to bring on record these developments and to seek interim bail in respect of FIR No.70 of 2020. During the pendency of these proceedings, the Allahabad 11. th High Court, by a detailed order dated 10  May, 2022, granted bail to the petitioner in the said FIR No. 312 of 2019, while imposing severe conditions.   12. We have heard Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/petitioner and Shri S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh.  8 13. Shri  Kapil   Sibal,   learned   Senior   Counsel,   submits   that from the facts, it is clear that the Ruling Party is making every attempt   possible   to   keep   the   petitioner   behind   the   bars   by implicating him in one FIR after the other.    He submits that the present case is a case of political vendetta.   14. Shri   Sibal   further   submits   that   when   the   petitioner approached this Court by way of the said M.A. pointing out to this   court   that   though   the   High   Court   had   heard   the   bail application   concerning   the   said   FIR   No.312   of   2019   and reserved the same for orders for number of months, no orders were passed.  He submits that anticipating that the petitioner would be granted bail in the said matter, he has been falsely implicated as an accused in FIR No. 70 of 2020.  He submits th that in the said crime, not only the FIR is registered on 18 March, 2020, but a charge­sheet in the said FIR was also filed th long   ago,   i.e.,   on   10   September,   2020.     It   is   therefore submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the said matter only in order to deny him his personal liberty.   9 15. Shri   S.V.   Raju,   learned   Additional   Solicitor   General, vehemently   opposed   the   application(s)/petition.     He   submits that under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Investigating Agency is always free to file a charge­ sheet against an additional accused if during the investigation, material is found against him.  He submits that the petitioner is a heavy­weight politician and due to his pressure, though he was   involved   in   number   of   criminal   acts,   no   FIRs   were registered against him.  It is submitted that the petitioner is a land­grabber   and   is   a   habitual   offender.     He   submits   that merely   because   the   petitioner   is   a   politician,   he   cannot   be permitted   to   by­pass   the   remedy   of   filing   regular   bail application before the  appropriate Court.   Shri Raju further submits that when the petitioner’s statement was recorded by the I.O. in respect of FIR No.70 of 2020, he threatened the I.O. with dire consequences. He therefore submits that both the Interlocutory Application as well as the writ petition deserve to be dismissed.  10 16. In ordinary circumstances, we would not have entertained the   present   writ   petition.   The   petitioner   would   have   been directed to take recourse to the remedy available to him in law. However, the facts in the present case are very peculiar.   17. The   petitioner   approached   this   Court   by   way   of   Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 39 of 2022, stating therein that though in 84 FIRs he had already been granted bail, insofar as 3 FIRs are concerned, though the applications for bail were filed, they were either adjourned or heard and no orders were passed.  As th such, this Court passed the order dated 8  February, 2022 in the said Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 39 of 2022, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned court and request for expeditious disposal of the bail applications.  Though it was sought to be urged before this Court that FIRs were registered just before elections and most of them related to events that occurred long back, this Court had declined to entertain the writ petition and requested the concerned Court to dispose of the bail applications expeditiously.   11 18. Subsequently, though the petitioner was granted bail in th Crime No. 02 of 2018 dated 25  April, 2018, registered at Police Station SIT, Sadar, Lucknow, UP for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B, 201 IPC and Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Crime No.79 of st 2019, dated 1   February, 2019, registered with Police Station Hazratganj,   Lucknow,   UP   for   the   offences   punishable   under Section 500 and 505 IPC, insofar as FIR No.312 of 2019 is concerned, though the Allahabad High Court had closed the th Bail Application for orders on 4    December, 2021, no orders were   passed.     In   this   background,   the   petitioner   had approached this Court by way of said M.A., praying for interim bail in the said FIR No.312 of 2019.  The said M.A. was listed th from time to time.  When we heard the said M.A. on 6  May, th 2022,   we   simply   adjourned   it   to   11   May,   2022   as   it   was informed to this Court that the Allahabad High Court was likely to pass the order shortly in the Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40580 of 2021 relating to the said FIR No. 312 of 2019.  On 12 th the same day, i.e., 6  May, 2022, on which date we adjourned the said M.A., an order was passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate remanding the petitioner to custody.    After the said M.A. was adjourned, the I.O. started acting 19. th on the letter dated 24  April, 2022 of the complainant, stating therein that though the petitioner was involved in the crime reported in FIR No.70 of 2020, no action was taken against him.   During the pendency of the said M.A., the statements came to be recorded implicating the petitioner.   On the same th day when we adjourned the said M.A., i.e., on 6  May, 2022, an order was passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, remanding the petitioner to judicial custody in FIR th No.70   of   2020.     Thereafter   on   10   May,   2022,   the   learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court has passed an order in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40580 of 2021, thereby granting bail to the petitioner in the said FIR No.312 of 2019.   20. The order of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad th High Court dated 10  May, 2020 runs into 40 pages. Stringent 13 conditions have been imposed by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court while releasing the petitioner on bail. We do not wish to make any comments with regard to the said bail order.  The least that could be said is that this Court has repeatedly held that while deciding a bail application, the Court should not embark upon a detailed enquiry with regard to the merits of the matter.  The learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court rightly observed that bail is a right of any accused and   jail   is   an   exception   and   therefore,   on   humanitarian grounds   and   keeping   in   view   the   applicant’s/petitioner’s deteriorating health, old age and the period undergone in jail, considered   it   just   to   grant   bail   by   imposing   stringent conditions.   21. It could thus be seen that the petitioner, who was accused in 87 criminal cases when he approached this Court by way of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 39 of 2022 and was granted bail in 84 cases at that point of time, has now been granted bail in all 87 cases.  It is only on account of implication of the petitioner 14 in FIR No. 70 of 2020 that he would be denied his personal th liberty.   Though FIR No. 70 of 2020 was registered on 18 March, 2020 and the charge­sheet in the said FIR was filed on th 10   September, 2020, the petitioner in the said FIR has only now been implicated, i.e., after a period of 1 year and 7 months, th by order dated 6   May, 2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.  It is not as if that the allegations which are now sought to be made against the petitioner could not have been made at that point of time.  The main allegation against the petitioner in the said FIR No.70 of 2020 is that the certificates are forged.   Further allegation is that the person who had issued the certificates was not authorized to issue those certificates.   22. Taking into consideration the delay in implication of the petitioner   in   FIR   No.   70   of   2020   and   the   nature   of   the allegations made therein, we are of the considered view that it will not be in the interest of justice to deprive the petitioner of his personal liberty, particularly when in respect of 87 criminal 15 cases/FIRs,   which   were   the   subject   matter   of   Writ   Petition (Criminal) No. 39 of 2022, he has already been released on bail. th The last of such bail order has been passed on 10  May, 2022 by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court after a gap of so many months from the date of reserving the order, th i.e., 4  December, 2021.   23. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner threatened the I.O. is concerned, we may only observe that it appears to be a matter of sheer coincidence that the General Diary (GD) entry th with regard to said threats is registered on 17   May, 2022 at 03:04 hrs., i.e., the date on which the present proceedings were to come up for hearing and were heard.   We therefore do not find it necessary to make any further comments thereon.   24. We are therefore of the view that this is a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and grant interim bail to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, till he files 16 the application for regular bail and the same is considered by the Competent Court.   25. Insofar as the other reliefs being sought in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.188 of 2022 are concerned, we are not inclined to consider the same.   26. In the result, we pass the following order: (i) The Writ Petition (Criminal) No.188 of 2022 is partly allowed; (ii) The petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail in   respect   of   FIR   being   Case   Crime   No.70   of   2020, registered with Police Station Kotwali, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC on such terms and conditions as found appropriate by the trial Court;  (iii) The   petitioner   is   directed   to   file   an   application   for regular bail before the Competent Court within a period of two weeks from today.  The same shall be decided by 17 the Competent Court on its own merits without being influenced   by   any   of   the   observations   made   in   the present order;   (iv) The interim bail granted to the petitioner by the present order shall continue to operate till the decision of the Competent Court in the application for regular bail and in the event that the regular bail application is decided against   the   interest   of   the   petitioner,   the   present interim   bail   shall   continue   to   operate   for   a   further period of two weeks from the date of the order passed by the Competent Court in the application for regular bail;   (v) No orders are necessary to be passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 766 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.   39   of   2022   and   I.A.   No.   71580   of   2022   in Miscellaneous   Application   No.   766   of   2022   in   Writ Petition   (Criminal)   No.   39   of   2022.     The   same   are accordingly disposed of. 18 27. Pending application(s) if any, including the application(s) for directions, shall stand disposed of in the above terms.     …..….......................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]     …….........................J.        [B.R. GAVAI] …….........................J.        [A.S. BOPANNA] NEW DELHI; MAY 19, 2022. 19 1 ITEM NO.1503 COURT NO.5 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. No.71580 OF 2022 IN/AND Miscellaneous Application No.766/2022 in W.P.(Crl.) No.39/2022 MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN Applicant/ Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s) (IA No.62399/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.62398/2022- APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS) WITH W.P.(Crl.) No. 188/2022 (X) Date : 19-05-2022 These matters were called on for pronouncement of order today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., AOR Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv. Mr. Jubair Khan, Adv. Mr. Aditya Samaddar, Adv. Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. S V Raju, Ld. ASG Ms. Garima Prasad Sr. Adv./AAG Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, AOR. Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Adv Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv Mr. Narender Rana, Adv Mr. Neelambar Jha, Adv The Order is pronounced by the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna. This Court inter alia passed the following order: (i) The Writ Petition (Criminal) No.188 of 2 2022 is partly allowed; (ii) The petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail in respect of FIR being Case Crime No.70 of 2020, registered with Police Station Kotwali, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC on such terms and conditions as found appropriate by the trial Court; (iii) The petitioner is directed to file an application for regular bail before the Competent Court within a period of two weeks from today. The same shall be decided by the Competent Court on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in the present order; (iv) The interim bail granted to the petitioner by the present order shall continue to operate till the decision of the Competent Court in the application for regular bail and in the event that the regular bail application is decided against the interest of the petitioner, the present interim bail shall continue to operate for a further period of two weeks from the date of the order passed by the Competent Court in the application for regular bail; (v) No orders are necessary to be passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 766 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 39 of 2022 and I.A. No. 3 71580 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 766 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 39 of 2022. The same are accordingly disposed of.” Pending application(s) if any, including the application(s) for directions, shall stand disposed of in the above terms.   (Geeta Ahuja) (Anand Prakash) Court Master Assistant Registrar (Signed non reportable order is placed on the file)