E-Paper
SC grants bail to Azam Khan, son in forgery case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to senior Samajwadi Party leader and former Uttar Pradesh minister Azam Khan and his son, Mohammad Abdullah, in a forgery case and held that the duo will be released only after the trial court has recorded the statement of the complainant in the case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to senior Samajwadi Party leader and former Uttar Pradesh minister Azam Khan and his son, Mohammad Abdullah, in a forgery case and held that the duo will be released only after the trial court has recorded the statement of the complainant in the case. The court directed the trial court to complete this exercise within four weeks and file a compliance report before the top court.
Khan and his son approached the top court after they were denied bail by the Allahabad high court in November 2020. The case against them was filed on the basis of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Akash Saxena’s complaint in 2019. Saxena has accused Azam Khan of obtaining forged identity documents such as a PAN card and Passport for his son to enable him to fight the 2017 assembly elections. A person needs to be aged above 25 to contest elections.
The prosecution alleged that the original birth certificate of Abdullah showed his date of birth as January 1, 1993. But to be eligible to contest elections, he obtained a new birth certificate showing his date of birth as September 30, 1991. The charge sheet filed in the case accused the duo of forging PAN card and Passport to establish the changed date of birth.
Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju described Azam Khan as a “habitual forger” and cited a case of grabbing enemy property land using forged land records pending against him. In all, Azam Khan has 87 criminal cases pending against him while his son has 41 pending cases.
In this particular case pertaining to offences of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy punishable under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, the apex court noted that it was a fit case for bail as Azam Khan was arrested in this case in February 2020 and since then, investigation had been completed and charge sheet filed in May last year.
The bench of justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna said, “This is a case based on documentary evidence. Is it fair to keep a person in custody when there is evidence on both sides? Already the courts are overflowing with cases, and delay is a systematic problem unless you can assure that the trial will be completed within a fixed time.”
Raju said the accused had moved an application seeking discharge in this case, which is listed on Wednesday before the trial court. He claimed that the “accused is influential, and witnesses are scared of him,” and sought protection for the complainant whose statement is yet to be recorded by the trial court.
The bench in its order said, “We deem it appropriate to direct release of appellants on bail in connection with FIR 980/2019 after the statement of informant is recorded by the trial court.” The court asked the state to ensure the informant is produced in trial court on August 16 and directed the trial court to record his statement/evidence within four weeks and report compliance.
The bench directed Khan and his son to extend full cooperation for the recording of evidence and asked them to abide by all strict conditions to be imposed by the trial court of not influencing witnesses or tampering with prosecution evidence.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and S Wasim Qadri appeared for the two accused and argued that this was a case of “political vendetta” as multiple “cases were forged against the two accused without reason”. Sibal said that Khan has been granted bail in 85 out of 87 FIRs. “The manner in which the state is pursuing FIRs against the appellant shows they have no other work,” Sibal said, arguing that Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) allows common trial of similar offences against the same person.
The bench asked ASG Raju, “The core issue in all these FIRs relates to date of birth. If you show that the second birth certificate is false, you will succeed. Multiplicity of evidence is not going to help you. Even the court system will be unnecessarily burdened. Why can’t you club the trials in all the FIRs into one.”
The law officer sought time to take instructions in this regard even as he opposed saying that the accused and the nature of offence in all these cases are different. The court posted the matter after two weeks for consideration of this aspect.
