Delve into the legal intricacies of a case where the court analyzed bail petitions in multiple criminal cases. The Court’s focus on timely decision-making and considerations for personal liberty sheds light on the importance of judicial processes in upholding justice.
Facts
- The petitioner had filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No.39 of 2022 seeking bail in multiple cases.
- While the petitioner secured bail in 84 cases, bail applications in 3 cases were either adjourned or not decided.
- Allegations were made regarding the filing of criminal cases by the Ruling Party with malicious intent.
- The High Court granted bail in one case but imposed strict conditions.
- The petitioner was subsequently granted bail in two other cases.
- The State filed an application bringing out certain developments in the case.
- The petitioner was named as an accused in FIR No.70 of 2020 and remanded to custody by the Magistrate.
- An additional prayer was made in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.188 of 2022 to quash proceedings in FIR No.70 of 2020.
- There were delays in decision-making, affecting the petitioner’s personal liberty.
- The Investigating Officer acted on a complainant’s letter implicating the petitioner in a specific crime.
- The court actions and adjournments led to prolonged delays in the case.
- The order of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dated 10 May, 2020 runs into 40 pages.
- Stringent conditions have been imposed by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court while releasing the petitioner on bail.
- On the same day when the M.A. was adjourned on 6 May, 2022, an order was passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, remanding the petitioner to judicial custody in FIR No.70 of 2020.
- On 10 May, 2022, the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the petitioner in FIR No.312 of 2019.
- When the M.A. was heard on 6 May, 2022, it was adjourned to 11 May, 2022, as it was informed to the Court that the Allahabad High Court was likely to pass an order shortly in the Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40580 of 2021 relating to FIR No. 312 of 2019.
Also Read: Presumption of Genuine Endorsements in Cheque Case
Arguments
- The petitioner approached the Court regarding delays in passing orders on a bail application concerning FIR No. 312 of 2019.
- He was falsely implicated in FIR No. 70 of 2020 after a charge-sheet was filed in that case.
- The petitioner, a politician, alleges being targeted due to political pressure, despite no previous FIRs against him.
- Section 173(8) allows for filing a charge-sheet against an additional accused if incriminating evidence is found during investigation.
- The petitioner argues that the new case is politically motivated and a case of vendetta.
- In ordinary circumstances, the writ petition would not have been entertained.
- The petitioner is labeled as a land-grabber and a habitual offender.
- It is suggested that the petitioner should have utilized the available legal remedy.
- The Interlocutory Application and the writ petition are deemed to be dismissed.
- The petitioner, despite being a politician, should not be allowed to bypass the regular legal process.
- The petitioner allegedly threatened the Investigating Officer with consequences during the recording of his statement.
Also Read: Medical Negligence and Compensation: A Landmark Decision
Analysis
- The Court emphasized that while deciding a bail application, it should not delve into the merits of the case.
- The main allegation in FIR No.70 of 2020 against the petitioner is related to forged certificates.
- The delay in implicating the petitioner in the FIR after 1 year and 7 months was highlighted.
- The Court declined to entertain the writ petition regarding FIRs registered just before elections and urged for expedited disposal of bail applications.
- The petitioner, initially accused in 87 criminal cases, has been granted bail in all cases gradually.
- Despite the peculiar nature of the case, the Court considered the petitioner’s deteriorating health, old age, and time spent in jail as humanitarian grounds for granting bail with stringent conditions.
- The denial of personal liberty to the petitioner is only due to his implication in FIR No. 70 of 2020.
- It was noted that the alleged issuer of the certificates was unauthorized to do so.
- Considering the delay in implication and the allegations’ nature, the Court opined that depriving the petitioner of personal liberty would not serve the interest of justice, especially since he had been released on bail in the previous 87 cases.
- The last bail order was granted on 10 May, 2022, after a significant gap from the date of reserving the order on 4 December, 2021.
- Petitioner granted interim bail in Case Crime No. 70 of 2020 for offences under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC.
- Petitioner directed to file regular bail application within two weeks.
- Competent Court to decide regular bail application on its own merits.
- Interim bail to continue until Competent Court’s decision on regular bail application.
- No further orders needed for miscellaneous applications.
- Other reliefs sought in the petition not considered.
Also Read: Remand of Writ Petition for Restoration and Decision on Merits
Decision
- Pending applications, if any, including applications for directions, are disposed of.
- The judgment is pronounced with the above terms.
Case Title: MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2022 INSC 599)
Case Number: MA-000766 / 2022
