Mohd Shadab vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court held that while it is inappropriate to discuss evidence in depth at the bail stage, a perusal of the collected evidence prima facie indicates the applicant's involvement cannot be ruled out. The Court found no reason to believe the applicant was falsely implicated and therefore, no good ground for release on bail at this stage. The contentions raised by the applicant's counsel were considered to pertain to the merits of the case, which cannot be adjudicated during a bail application. The Court was unable to form an opinion that the accused had not committed an offence. Consequently, considering the facts, circumstances, gravity of the offence, and severity of punishment, no case for bail was made out. The observations made are limited to the bail application and will not affect the trial.

Facts

The applicant, Tanu, sought bail in Case Crime No. 420 of 2025, under various sections of the BNS, registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur. The applicant has been in jail since January 13, 2026, and their bail application was previously rejected by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, on February 11, 2026. The High Court had previously directed the learned AGA to obtain instructions regarding the investigation status and material against the applicant, and later required the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur, to appear due to non-compliance. A personal affidavit was filed by the Superintendent of Police, which was accepted by the Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, considering their alleged involvement in the commission of the offence and the evidence collected during the investigation? The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is innocent, falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and their name surfaced through a co-accused's statement. It was contended that the applicant, an accountant, has no connection to the crime, no specific role was assigned, charge sheet has been filed, and further custodial interrogation is not required. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and is not likely to abscond or tamper with evidence. The revenue argued that the applicant, using fake documents, registered bogus firms (Shorya Trader and Yogesh Trader), claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 27,67,30,778.70 and Rs. 97,41,055.65 respectively, causing revenue loss. Evidence including 7 mobile phones, a laptop, and 52 invoices/e-way bills of bogus firms were recovered, and the applicant uploaded forged documents on the GST portal.