Allegations reflect gross misuse of position, coercion: Allahabad High Court denies bail to Samajwadi Party leader Mohd Azam Khan and son

The Allahabad High Court has rejected three bail applications moved by Samajwadi Party Leader Mohammad Azam Khan and his son Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan in forgery cases lodged against them for allegedly manipulating the birthdate mentioned in a PAN card so as to allow Abdullah Khan to contest in 2017 State elections. .While passing the order, Justice Suneet Kumar observed that the alleged forgery was committed while Mohammad Azam Khan held office as a Cabinet Minister. The order reads:."The forged date of birth was procured during the tenure of the first applicant being Cabinet Minister; Municipal Corporation was under his ministry. The allegations reflect deep rooted criminal conspiracy; gross misuse of position, exercise of coercion and threat in commission of the offence and perpetuating it.".The allegations reflect deep rooted criminal conspiracy; gross misuse of position, exercise of coercion and threat in commission of the offence and perpetuating it.Allahabad High Court.Azam Khan and his son were alleged to have forged and frauduelently obtained a PAN and Passport, so that whie filing nomination papers for the 2017 Legislative Assembly elections, Abdullah Khan's date of birth was shown as September 30, 1990. .His earlier PAN mentioned his date of birth as January 1, 1993, which would have rendered him ineligible to contest the 2017 elections for not clearing the minimum age limit. .While pressing for bail, the applicants' counsel pointed out that another Bench of the Allahabad High Court had already allowed them bail in a case filed against the two and Azam Khan's wife for allegedly forging Abdullah Azam Khan's birth certificate..Allahabad HC grants bail to Samajwadi Party leader Mohd Azam Khan, his wife and son in case for fabricating son's birth certificate.The instant cases were lodged only to multiply the number of criminal cases against the applicants, with malafide intent and without there being any new offence disclosed, it was argued. .Justice Kumar, however, opined that this was not reason enough to enlarge them on bail in the present cases. His order reads, "Merely, for the reason that the applicants have been enlarged on bail in a case where allegation is of procuring forged document pertaining to date of birth cannot be viewed mechanically while considering the bail applications, in other cases, though, the genesis is rooted in forged date of birth. It cannot be said, in the given facts that the instant case is a consequence of the alleged corrections of the subsequent document based on the date of birth. There is allegation of criminal conspiracy, deception, misuse of office and position in procuring forged document by the first applicant to benefit the second applicant..The Court also took on record the State's submissions as regards the criminal antecedents of the two bail applicants. Azam Khan was stated to have 91 cases against him starting from 1982, his wife Dr Tazeen was stated to have 32 cases and their son was alleged to have 44 cases lodged against him. .Most of the cases pertained to fraud and forgery, the State added, while also referring to the land grabbing allegations against Azam Khan. .The Court took note that Khan was alleged to have intimidated and threatened landholders while trying to usurp government land. As stated in the order:."Private individuals have lodged as many as 26 FIRs, inter alia, alleging that the nominated police official at the behest of the first applicant (Azam Khan), had booked the land holders in petty frivolous cases. It is alleged that in lockup they were mercilessly beaten and coerced to transfer their land holdings to the trust against their free will. It is urged by the State that the small land holders could muster courage to lodge FIRs hesitantly on being convinced that the first applicant and his family members would not harm them as long as they are behind the bars. The first applicant is an accused in all the cases.".The Court proceeded to observe that personal liberty should be balanced against public interest and that it must ensure that justice is not thwarted by the powerful and influential accused persons..In this backdrop, and given the State's submissions that the applicants had not cooperated with the probe until coercive measures were adopted, the Court proceeded to reject the bail applications. The Court's order reads:."Having regard to the allegations that the applicants did not cooperate with the investigation and court proceedings, consequently, coercive measures had to be adopted against them. Further, having regard to the position and status of the accused persons, the repetition of the offences, and the deep rooted and pervasive influence, applicants exercise in the various departments of the State, there is reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, and danger to the course of justice being thwarted. In the circumstances, grant of bail at this stage would not be in public interest.".... there is reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, and danger to the course of justice being thwarted. In the circumstances, grant of bail at this stage would not be in public interest.Allahabad High Court.Justice Kumar, however, added that the applicants were at liberty to approach the Court for bail after the witnesses of fact are examined in the trial. Given the Supreme Court's directions in the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case before it, the trial in the matter was also directed to be expedited. ."The trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in the order", the High Court clarified. .Read the order: