Mohammad Shahnawaz vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Mohammad Shahnawaz, in Case Crime No. 503 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506 IPC. The decision was based on hearing submissions from both sides, considering the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the court, the reformative theory of punishment, and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, citing the Apex Court's dictum in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another. The court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case. The applicant was released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including attending trial proceedings, not tampering with witnesses, and not indulging in illegal activities. The court clarified that observations were confined to the bail application and not reflective of the ultimate merits. The identity and residential proof of sureties were to be verified, and breach of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.

Facts

The informant received a notice from the Additional Commissioner Trade Tax, Dehradoon, on October 7, 2021, regarding outstanding trade tax in the name of Maheen Traders. The informant, residing in Saharanpur, was not involved in any business in Dehradoon. Upon inquiry, it was discovered that the firm was being operated by co-accused Akram and Mohammad Shahnawaz (the applicant) using the informant's TIN number. A partnership deed dated June 3, 2017, was created between Akram and Shahnawaz, with the informant's name appearing as a retiring partner in an amended deed dated July 1, 2017. The accused allegedly incurred a trade tax loss of Rs. 36,00,000/-. The informant lodged an FIR after receiving the notice. The applicant claims false implication and parity with co-accused Akram, who was granted anticipatory bail. The applicant also states he invested Rs. 21,92,125/- in the firm and that the GST registration was obtained by co-accused Akram.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of fraud and financial loss, and the fact that the informant's signature on firm documents could not be verified by the forensic science laboratory? Contentions: Petitioner (Mohammad Shahnawaz): The applicant has been falsely implicated with ulterior motives. Co-accused Akram, with a similar role, has been granted anticipatory bail. The applicant invested a significant amount in the firm, and there is a statutory remedy for the informant. The GST registration was obtained by co-accused Akram. The applicant has no prior criminal history and has been in jail since September 27, 2022. There is no apprehension of influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or fleeing. The applicant undertakes to abide by bail conditions. Revenue (State of U.P. and Informant): The documents sent to the forensic science laboratory showed that the informant's signature could not be verified. The informant was shown as a retired partner in a subsequent deed to manipulate facts and cause unlawful loss. The prayer for bail is vehemently opposed.