Date of the Judgment: May 19, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 513
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
Can a court intervene when it appears that a person is being repeatedly implicated in criminal cases to deny them their personal liberty? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving Mohammad Azam Khan, a prominent politician. The court granted him interim bail, highlighting concerns about potential political vendetta and the misuse of legal processes. This case underscores the importance of protecting individual liberties against politically motivated actions.
Case Background
Mohammad Azam Khan, the petitioner, had previously filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court on January 22, 2022, stating that 87 criminal cases had been registered against him. He contended that 84 of these cases were filed after the current government came into power in 2017, alleging a political vendetta.
Initially, the Supreme Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned courts for expeditious disposal of his bail applications. While he secured bail in most cases, one case (FIR No. 312 of 2019) remained pending in the Allahabad High Court, where the order was reserved on December 4, 2021, but not yet pronounced.
Subsequently, a new FIR (No. 70 of 2020) was brought against the petitioner, where he was not initially named. A charge sheet was filed on September 10, 2020, naming his wife and a clerk. However, on April 24, 2022, the complainant wrote to the Investigating Officer (IO) alleging the petitioner’s involvement. Following this, the petitioner was summoned on May 5, 2022, and remanded to custody on May 6, 2022.
This led to the filing of a new writ petition, seeking interim bail in FIR No. 70 of 2020 and quashing of the proceedings against him in the said FIR.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 22, 2022 | Petitioner filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 39 of 2022 in the Supreme Court, stating that 87 criminal cases/FIRs were filed against him. |
| February 8, 2022 | Supreme Court disposed of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 39 of 2022, directing the petitioner to approach the concerned court for expeditious disposal of bail applications. |
| April 24, 2022 | Complainant wrote to the Investigating Officer (I.O.) stating that the petitioner was also liable to be made an accused in FIR No. 70 of 2020. |
| April 23, 2022 | Petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No. 766 of 2022 seeking interim bail in FIR No. 312 of 2019. |
| May 5, 2022 | Investigating Officer (I.O.) applied to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, seeking to summon the petitioner in FIR No. 70 of 2020. The Magistrate passed an order summoning the petitioner on the same day. |
| May 6, 2022 | Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, arrayed the petitioner as an accused in FIR No. 70 of 2020 and remanded him to custody. |
| May 10, 2022 | Allahabad High Court granted bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 312 of 2019. |
| May 19, 2022 | Supreme Court granted interim bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 70 of 2020. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court seeking bail in three specific cases. The court directed him to seek relief from the concerned courts. Subsequently, while the petitioner secured bail in two cases, his bail application in FIR No. 312 of 2019 remained pending in the Allahabad High Court after being reserved for orders on December 4, 2021.
The petitioner then filed a miscellaneous application in the Supreme Court seeking interim bail in FIR No. 312 of 2019. During the pendency of this application, the petitioner was summoned and remanded to custody in FIR No. 70 of 2020, leading to the filing of the present writ petition seeking interim bail in this new FIR and quashing of the proceedings.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves Sections 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the offense of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
- Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section pertains to criminal conspiracy, which involves an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act.
The court also considered Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allows the Investigating Agency to file a charge sheet against an additional accused if material is found against them during the investigation.
Arguments
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The petitioner argued that the ruling party was making every effort to keep him in jail by implicating him in one FIR after another, calling it a case of political vendetta.
- It was submitted that the petitioner was implicated in FIR No. 70 of 2020 only to deny him his personal liberty. The FIR was registered on March 18, 2020, and a charge sheet was filed on September 10, 2020, without naming him. He was only implicated after a delay of one year and seven months.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The State argued 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 material is found against him.
- The State contended that the petitioner is a heavy-weight politician and a habitual offender involved in land grabbing and other criminal activities.
- The State also submitted that the petitioner threatened the Investigating Officer (I.O.) when his statement was recorded in respect of FIR No. 70 of 2020.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Petitioner) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Political Vendetta |
✓ FIRs registered just before elections. ✓ Most cases relate to old events. ✓ Implicated in FIR No. 70 of 2020 after a long delay. |
✓ Petitioner is a heavy-weight politician. ✓ Petitioner is a land grabber and habitual offender. ✓ Investigating agency can file charge sheet against additional accused |
| Denial of Liberty |
✓ Implicated to deny personal liberty. ✓ Bail applications adjourned or not decided. |
✓ Petitioner should seek regular bail. ✓ Petitioner threatened the I.O. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner should be granted interim bail in FIR No. 70 of 2020, considering the circumstances of his implication and the numerous other cases against him.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether interim bail should be granted in FIR No. 70 of 2020 | Interim bail granted | The court considered the delay in implicating the petitioner in FIR No. 70 of 2020, the nature of the allegations, and the fact that the petitioner had been granted bail in 87 other cases. The court also noted that it was not in the interest of justice to deprive the petitioner of his personal liberty. |
Authorities
The court considered Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which allows for further investigation and filing of charge sheets against additional accused.
The court also reiterated that while deciding a bail application, the Court should not embark upon a detailed enquiry with regard to the merits of the matter. The court took note of the Allahabad High Court’s observation that bail is a right of any accused and jail is an exception.
| Authority | Type | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Statute | The court acknowledged the provision allowing for additional charge sheets but emphasized the need to consider the circumstances of the case. |
| Observations of Allahabad High Court | Court Order | The court noted the High Court’s view that bail is a right and jail is an exception, which influenced its decision to grant interim bail. |
Judgment
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s claim of political vendetta | The court acknowledged the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the delay in implicating the petitioner in FIR No. 70 of 2020. |
| State’s argument under Section 173(8) of CrPC | The court acknowledged the provision but highlighted the importance of considering the specific facts of the case. |
| State’s claim that the petitioner is a habitual offender | The court did not delve into the merits of this claim but focused on the immediate need to protect the petitioner’s personal liberty. |
| State’s claim that petitioner threatened the I.O. | The court noted the timing of the General Diary entry regarding the threat and did not find it necessary to comment further. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | The court acknowledged the provision but emphasized that it should not be used to unjustly deprive a person of their liberty, especially when there are indications of a political vendetta. |
| Observations of Allahabad High Court | The court agreed with the High Court’s view that bail is a right and jail is an exception, which supported its decision to grant interim bail. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The significant delay in implicating the petitioner in FIR No. 70 of 2020, despite the FIR and charge sheet being filed much earlier.
- The fact that the petitioner had already been granted bail in 87 other criminal cases.
- The nature of allegations in FIR No. 70 of 2020, which primarily concerned forged certificates.
- The court’s concern that the petitioner was being targeted to deny him his personal liberty.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Delay in Implication in FIR No. 70 of 2020 | 30% |
| Bail Granted in 87 Other Cases | 30% |
| Nature of Allegations in FIR No. 70 of 2020 | 25% |
| Concern for Personal Liberty | 15% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s reasoning was a blend of factual considerations and legal principles. The factual aspects, such as the delay in implicating the petitioner and the number of cases in which he had been granted bail, played a significant role. However, the court also considered the legal principle that bail is a right and jail is an exception.
The Supreme Court, while granting interim bail, emphasized the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The court noted that the petitioner had already been granted bail in 87 criminal cases and that the allegations in FIR No. 70 of 2020 were not new. The court also took into account the delay in implicating the petitioner in the said FIR.
The court observed, “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…”
The court further stated, “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 court also noted, “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.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of protecting personal liberty, especially when there are indications of political vendetta.
- The court highlighted that delays in implicating an accused can be a significant factor in granting bail.
- The judgment underscores that while the investigating agency has the power to file charge sheets against additional accused, this power should not be used to unjustly deprive individuals of their liberty.
- The court reiterated that while deciding bail applications, courts should not delve into a detailed enquiry of the merits of the case.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following:
- The petitioner was granted interim bail in respect of FIR No. 70 of 2020.
- The petitioner was directed to file an application for regular bail before the competent court within two weeks.
- The competent court was directed to decide the regular bail application on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations made in the Supreme Court’s order.
- The interim bail granted by the Supreme Court will continue to operate until the decision on the regular bail application. If the regular bail application is rejected, the interim bail will continue for a further period of two weeks.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that personal liberty should be protected, especially when there are indications of political vendetta or misuse of legal processes. The court emphasized that delays in implicating an accused can be a significant factor in granting bail. This judgment reinforces the principle that bail is a right and jail is an exception, particularly when there are concerns about the fairness of the legal process. The court also reiterated that while deciding bail applications, courts should not delve into a detailed enquiry of the merits of the case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant interim bail to Mohammad Azam Khan in FIR No. 70 of 2020 highlights the court’s commitment to protecting individual liberties against potential misuse of power. The judgment underscores the importance of considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case, particularly when there are concerns about political vendetta or undue delays in the legal process. The court’s intervention serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring fairness in the administration of justice.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories:
- Bail
- Interim Bail
- Political Vendetta
- Misuse of Power
- Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was whether Mohammad Azam Khan should be granted interim bail in FIR No. 70 of 2020, considering the circumstances of his implication and the numerous other cases against him.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court grant interim bail?
A: The Supreme Court granted interim bail due to the significant delay in implicating the petitioner in FIR No. 70 of 2020, the fact that he had already been granted bail in 87 other cases, and concerns about political vendetta.
Q: What is Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the offense of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Q: What is Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pertains to criminal conspiracy, which involves an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act.
Q: What are the implications of this judgment?
A: The judgment emphasizes the importance of protecting personal liberty and ensuring that legal processes are not misused for political vendetta. It also highlights that delays in implicating an accused can be a significant factor in granting bail.