Allahabad HC grants bail to Samajwadi Party leader Mohd Azam Khan, his wife and son in case for fabricating son's birth certificate

The Allahabad High Court yesterday granted bail to Samajwadi Party leader Mohd Azam Khan, his wife Dr Tanzeen Fatima and son, Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan,in a case filed against them for allegedly forging Abdullah Azam Khan's birth certificate (Dr. Tazeen Fatima and ors v State of UP). .Whereas Dr Fatima and Abdullah Azam Khan were directed to be released on bail immediately, the Court clarified that Azam Khan may be released only after the statement of the informant is recorded by the trial court..The High Court held that since it was Azam Khan and Dr Fatima who may have acted to get a duplicate birth certificate for their son, rather than Abdullah Azam Khan himself having given any affidavit for the same, he was entitled to release on bail forthwith. .Dr Tanzeen Fatima was given the benefit of Section 437 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being a woman, and was accordingly enlarged on bail..The applicants were charged with offences mentioned under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code..Without expressing any opinions on the merits of the case, Justice Siddharth passed the order "having considered the material on record, the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22.".An FIR was lodged by Akash Saxena, a member of Bhartiya Janta Party, alleging that Mohd. Azam Khan and Dr. Tazeen Fatima had gotten two birth certificates issued for their from two places - one dated January 28, 2012 from Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur and a second dated April 21, 2015 from Nagar Nigam, Lucknow..The first birth certificate, recording Abdullah Azam Khan's date of birth as January 1, 1993 was used for getting a passport issued. The second one recording the date of birth as September 30, 1990, was misused in government documents to allow Khan to contest elections to the Legislative Assembly of State and in different recognitions given to Jauhar University, it was submitted..Earlier, in 2019, an election petition against Khan had been allowed. The petition challenged his eligibility to contest Assembly elections on grounds that he had two birth certificates, one of which indicated that he was a minor when he filed for nomination. .As far as the FIR was concerned, the applicants had previously challenged the charge-sheet and the summoning order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, which was dismissed by the High Court in February this year..In the bail proceedings, the High Court refused to accede to the arguments made by Senior Advocate GS Chaturvedi, appearing for all the three applicants, that the matter fell under the purview of exceptions mentioned under the Evidence Act..The Court further opined that the judgment passed in the Election Petition against Abdullah Azam Khan were not relevant for the purposes of consideration of the bail application..Additional Advocate General Vinod Diwakar, opposed the bail application stating that election to Legislative Assembly was a matter of public nature and there was every chance of the bail applicants tampering with the prosecution witnesses given how influential they were. .AAG Diwakar added that even the statement of the informant had not been recorded as of yet and that the applicants should be confined in jail till the same was recorded by the trial court. Further, it was contended the applicants have left no stone unturned, to evade the process of law and that they have scant respect for law of the land..The High Court opined,"The conduct of the first and second applicants is definitely wanting in rectitude keeping in view positions held by them. The third applicant has although contested and won election of the State Legislative Assembly on the basis of fabricated document, yet he was not instrumental in getting it issued by giving any affidavit before the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow. He was only beneficiary of the act done by other two applicants.".It went on to hold that the judgment passed in the Election Petition against Mohd Abdullah Azam Khan cannot be considered a judgment of public nature as per Section 42 of Evidence Act as the election petition was not a suit of general nature or representative action for adjudication of the status of a person..Hence, Dr Tanzeen Fatim and her son were granted bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. .In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it has been directed that the bail may be cancelled..The trial court was further asked to record the statement of the informant within a period of three months from the date on which the normal functioning of the trial court resumes..Read the order here: