High Court

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 26.3.2025 against co- accused Shahnawaz Rana and as per FIR co-accused Shahnawaz Rana was detained in jail in connection to some other crime and it was found that he was using mobile illegally.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is an Ex-MLA and he was not named in the FIR but during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of one of the co-accused.

5. He further submits that as per prosecution during investigation it was revealed that the sim of mobile phone which was being used by co-accused Shahnawaz Rana was in the name of Mohd. Sameer and thereafter Mohd. Sameer was made accused in the present matter and when his statement was recorded then he disclosed the name of the applicant by stating that he is servant of the applicant and applicant got issued sim card in his name and thereafter provided the sim to co-accused Shahnawaz Rana, who was detained in jail.

6. He further submits that entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false and co-accused Mohd. Sameer was never the servant of applicant.

7. He further submits that even except the statement of co-accused Mohd. Sameer, there is no evidence which can suggest that applicant was the person, who got issued the alleged sim card in the name of Mohammad Sameer and provided the same to co- accused Shahnawaz Rana.

8. He further submits that it is a case in which except the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of applicant there is no other cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant on record which can connect him with the instant crime.

9. He further submits that actually the marriage of the daughter of the applicant was solemnized with co-accused Shahnawaz Rana and co-accused Shahnawaz Rana was also an Ex-MLA, who belongs to Samajwadi Party and only due to political vendetta he was firstly made accused and thereafter during investigation applicant has also been made accused in the present matter.

10. He further submits that however, apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of 17 others cases but his entire criminal history has been duly explained in paragraph-33 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

11. He further submits that all the offences relate to minor offences and out of 17 cases in 10 cases applicant has already been acquitted and in remaining cases although trial is pending but in all the cases applicant is on bail.

12. He further submits that law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal antecedents bail application of an accused should not be withheld.

13. He next submits that all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and in the present matter applicant is in jail since

16.4.2025.

14. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was Ex-MLA and he was having larger responsibility on his shoulder to act in accordance with law but he violated the law of land and illegally provided the sim card to the named co-accused Shahnawaz Rana, who illegally used the mobile phone while he was in jail.

15. Learned AGA further submits that apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of 17 other cases and he is in jail in the present matter only since 16.4.2025.

16. Learned AGA however could not dispute the fact that except the statement of co-accused Mohd. Sameer and confessional statement of the applicant recorded before the Police, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record, which can suggest that applicant was the person who got issued the sim card in the name of co-accused Mohd. Sameer and thereafter provided the same to co-accused Shahnawaz Rana.

17. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that all the 17 cases relate to minor offences and in 10 cases applicant has already been acquitted and in all the remaining cases he is on bail.

18. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that entire criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in the instant bail application.

19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

20. From the record it reflects that applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation he has been made accused with the allegation that he got issued the sim card in the name of his servant, namely, co-accused Mohd. Sameer and thereafter provided that sim card to co-accused Shahnawaz Rana, who illegally used the mobile phone while he was in custody but it reflects that except the statement of co-accused Mohd. Sameer and confessional statement of the applicant before the Police there is no other cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant which can demonstrate that applicant was the person, who got issued sim card in the name of co-accused Mohd. Sameer, who was allegedly his servant and subsequently he provided the sim card to co-accused Shahnawaz Rana.

21. Further, however from the record it reflects that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 17 other cases but his entire criminal history has been duly explained in paragraph-33 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and out of 17 cases in 10 cases applicant has already been acquitted and in remaining cases he is on bail.

22. Further, all the 17 cases relate to minor offences and number of cases were under the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act and considering the fact that applicant is political figure, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that in all these cases he has been falsely implicated, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

23. Further, considering the fact that applicant is the close relative of co-accused Shahnawaz Rana and applicant and co-accused Shahnawaz Rana belong to Samajwadi Party, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that due to political vendetta without any cogent evidence applicant has been roped in the present matter, cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

24. Further, law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal antecedents bail application of an accused should not be rejected.

25. Further, all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate with maximum punishment of seven years and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 16.4.2025.

26. Further, law is also settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

27. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

28. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

29. Let the applicant-Mohammad Ghazi be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

30. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

31. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 SKM

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 26.3.2025 against co- accused Shahnawaz Rana and as per FIR co-accused Shahnawaz Rana was detained in jail in connection to some other crime and it was found that he was using mobile illegally.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is an Ex-MLA and he was not named in the FIR but during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of one of the co-accused.

5. He further submits that as per prosecution during investigation it was revealed that the sim of mobile phone which was being used by co-accused Shahnawaz Rana was in the name of Mohd. Sameer and thereafter Mohd. Sameer was made accused in the present matter and when his statement was recorded then he disclosed the name of the applicant by stating that he is servant of the applicant and applicant got issued sim card in his name and thereafter provided the sim to co-accused Shahnawaz Rana, who was detained in jail.

6. He further submits that entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false and co-accused Mohd. Sameer was never the servant of applicant.

7. He further submits that even except the statement of co-accused Mohd. Sameer, there is no evidence which can suggest that applicant was the person, who got issued the alleged sim card in the name of Mohammad Sameer and provided the same to co- accused Shahnawaz Rana.

8. He further submits that it is a case in which except the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of applicant there is no other cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant on record which can connect him with the instant crime.

9. He further submits that actually the marriage of the daughter of the applicant was solemnized with co-accused Shahnawaz Rana and co-accused Shahnawaz Rana was also an Ex-MLA, who belongs to Samajwadi Party and only due to political vendetta he was firstly made accused and thereafter during investigation applicant has also been made accused in the present matter.

10. He further submits that however, apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of 17 others cases but his entire criminal history has been duly explained in paragraph-33 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

11. He further submits that all the offences relate to minor offences and out of 17 cases in 10 cases applicant has already been acquitted and in remaining cases although trial is pending but in all the cases applicant is on bail.

12. He further submits that law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal antecedents bail application of an accused should not be withheld.

13. He next submits that all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and in the present matter applicant is in jail since

16.4.2025.

14. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was Ex-MLA and he was having larger responsibility on his shoulder to act in accordance with law but he violated the law of land and illegally provided the sim card to the named co-accused Shahnawaz Rana, who illegally used the mobile phone while he was in jail.

15. Learned AGA further submits that apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of 17 other cases and he is in jail in the present matter only since 16.4.2025.

16. Learned AGA however could not dispute the fact that except the statement of co-accused Mohd. Sameer and confessional statement of the applicant recorded before the Police, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record, which can suggest that applicant was the person who got issued the sim card in the name of co-accused Mohd. Sameer and thereafter provided the same to co-accused Shahnawaz Rana.

17. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that all the 17 cases relate to minor offences and in 10 cases applicant has already been acquitted and in all the remaining cases he is on bail.

18. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that entire criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in the instant bail application.

19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

20. From the record it reflects that applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation he has been made accused with the allegation that he got issued the sim card in the name of his servant, namely, co-accused Mohd. Sameer and thereafter provided that sim card to co-accused Shahnawaz Rana, who illegally used the mobile phone while he was in custody but it reflects that except the statement of co-accused Mohd. Sameer and confessional statement of the applicant before the Police there is no other cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant which can demonstrate that applicant was the person, who got issued sim card in the name of co-accused Mohd. Sameer, who was allegedly his servant and subsequently he provided the sim card to co-accused Shahnawaz Rana.

21. Further, however from the record it reflects that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 17 other cases but his entire criminal history has been duly explained in paragraph-33 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and out of 17 cases in 10 cases applicant has already been acquitted and in remaining cases he is on bail.

22. Further, all the 17 cases relate to minor offences and number of cases were under the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act and considering the fact that applicant is political figure, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that in all these cases he has been falsely implicated, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

23. Further, considering the fact that applicant is the close relative of co-accused Shahnawaz Rana and applicant and co-accused Shahnawaz Rana belong to Samajwadi Party, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that due to political vendetta without any cogent evidence applicant has been roped in the present matter, cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

24. Further, law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal antecedents bail application of an accused should not be rejected.

25. Further, all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate with maximum punishment of seven years and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 16.4.2025.

26. Further, law is also settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

27. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

28. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

29. Let the applicant-Mohammad Ghazi be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

30. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

31. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 SKM