Mahfooz vs. State Of U.P.

Facts

The applicant, Mahfooz, seeks bail in a criminal case involving alleged offenses under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including those related to forgery of GST receipts. The applicant was not named in the FIR. His involvement surfaced through the statement of a co-accused, Danish, who alleged that Mahfooz prepared forged GST receipts. No recovery was made from the applicant's possession. The applicant claims to be falsely implicated based on the co-accused's statement and highlights that another co-accused, Antu Alias Umar, has already been granted bail. The applicant asserts he is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal history and has been incarcerated since May 23, 2025.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Mahfooz. The decision was based on considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by both learned counsel, and keeping in view the nature of the offense, the evidence, and the complicity of the accused. The Court explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The reasoning appears to stem from the applicant not being named in the FIR, the alleged implication being based on a co-accused's statement, the absence of recovery, and the fact that a co-accused was already granted bail. The Court directed the applicant's release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to several conditions including not tampering with evidence, cooperating with the trial, not indulging in criminal activity, and attending court as required. The Court also stipulated that breach of these conditions would be grounds for cancellation of bail and required verification of the applicant's and sureties' identity, status, and residence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in light of his alleged involvement in preparing forged GST receipts, as stated by a co-accused, and the absence of his name in the FIR and any recovery from his possession? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)A BNS). Contentions: Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant contends he was not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated based solely on the statement of a co-accused, Danish. He emphasizes that no recovery was made from his possession and that another co-accused, Antu Alias Umar, has been granted bail. He also states he has no criminal history and has been in jail since May 23, 2025, promising to cooperate with the trial if granted bail. Revenue (State): The learned AGA opposed the bail prayer but could not dispute the facts presented by the applicant's counsel.