IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.
Mohammad Azam Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40580 of 2021
Decided on : 10-05-2022
Enemy Property Act, 1968 - Section 5 - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 - Section - 8 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Conspiracy, making forged and crafted documents - ‘Enemy Property’ - Bail is a right of any accused and jail is exception – Para 41, 42.
Finding of the Court:
Bail is a right of any accused and jail is exception, therefore, on the humanitarian ground this Court keeping in view the applicant’s deteriorating health, old age and the period undergone in jail, is considering the application of bail be allowed by imposing following conditions - Order in this bail application may sound like a decree of the civil court dealing and deciding the title over the property, if not done so, the Court is failing in its duty or seems like providing a shelter and patronage to a rank trespasser and usurper over the property in dispute as per own admission.
Result: Allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Imran Ullah, assisted by Sri Mohd. Khalid, Sri Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui, Sri Safdar Ali Qazmi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Syed Ahmad Faizan, Sri Zaheer Asghar, Sri Taqi Abidi, Sri Sharad Sharma and Ms. Anjum Fatima, learned counsel appearing for the informant and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Jai Narain Varshney, Sri Patanjali Mishra, Sri Abhijeet Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Advocates appearing for the State. Perused the record.
2. The pleadings have been exchanged between the parties, the matter was heard at length on previous occasion and the order was reserved to be dictated in the Chamber, meanwhile, learned A.G.A. on 28/29th April, 2022 made a mention in the Court, in the presence of learned counsel for the applicant, that on account of certain recent developments, touching the core issue, have cropped up during intervening period, and thus, requested to bring on record those fresh developments by filing a supplementary affidavit. With the consent of learned counsels of the applicant, the matter was reopened and after the exchange of affidavits, on 5.5.2022, heard marathon arguments advanced to the satisfaction of counsels of both the sides and after having the written submissions from the contesting parties, judgment was reserved to be pronounced in the second week of May, 2022.
3. This bail application has been filed on behalf of Mohammad Azam Khan, the applicant after his second bail application was rejected by learned Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Rampur vide order dated 4.8.2021.
4. The applicant Mohd. Azam Khan, who deserves no introduction, at one point of time was a political heavyweight of the then ruling party of the State of U.P., presently Member of Parliament from Rampur Loksabha constituency and Chancellor of Mohammad Ali Jauhar University (established by U.P. Act No.19 of 2006), is facing a prosecution in Case Crime No.312 of 2019, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station-Azeem Nagar, District-Rampur. He is behind the bars in connection with aforesaid offence since 26.02.2020 and seeking bail during trial.
STORY AS NARRATED IN FIR
5. Coming to the merits of the case, which ignites from lodging of the F.I.R. by one Sri Allama Zamir Naqvi, a self proclaimed public spirited person, by moving an application addressed to the D.G.P., Luckow on 29.7.2019, and as such, the present F.I.R. came into existence against nine named accused persons including the applicant, his wife Tanzim Fatima and son Abdullah Azam along with six others on 19.8.2019.
6. I have keenly perused the contents of the F.I.R. and for the sake of brevity the bulky F.I.R. is reduced to following points:
(b) The property left by Imamuddin Qureshi contains one room and an Imambara situated at Village -Singhan Khera, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, Rampur, having pucca Raqba 86 beegha, 2 biswa and as per notification issued by the Government of India 1962 and 1971, in all 45 gatas, ad-measuring area 13.842 hectares of agricultural land got endorsed and vested with the government, as per Section 5 of Enemy Property Act, 1968.
(c) In fact, this landed property ad-measuring
Manoranjana Sinh Alias Gupta vs CBI
Naveen Singh vs State of U.P. 2021 6 SCC 191
Prashanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496
Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40
State of Maharashtra vs. Sitaram Popat Vital
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.