Supreme Court grants interim bail to SP leader Azam Khan

The Supreme Court on Thursday invoked its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant interim bail to former Uttar Pradesh Minister and senior Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan, after noting that he had already been ordered to be released in 87 cases but was "implicated" now, in an FIR lodged on September 10, 2020.

A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, B R Gavai and A S Bopanna said, "It will not be in the interest of justice to deprive the petitioner of his personal liberty, particularly when in respect of 87 criminal cases he has already been released on bail."

The court also pointed out the last of such bail orders has been passed on May 10, 2022 by the single judge of the Allahabad High Court after a gap of so many months from the date of reserving it on December 4, 2021.

The bench also said a contention was made that Khan threatened the Investigating Officer in a case recently.

"It appears to be a matter of sheer coincidence that the General Diary (GD) entry with regard to said threats is registered on May 17, 2022 at 03:04 hours, i.e., the date on which the present proceedings were to come up for hearing and were heard. We therefore do not find it necessary to make any further comments," the bench said.

The court granted interim bail to Khan in 2020 case related to forgery of certificates, in which he was named as an accused on May 6, 2022 "in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, till he files the application for regular bail and the same is considered by the competent court".

Arguing for Khan on his writ petition, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, contended that the ruling party is making every attempt possible to keep the petitioner behind the bars by implicating him in one FIR after the other. He submitted that the present case is a case of political vendetta.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government claimed the petitioner is a heavyweight politician and due to his pressure, though he was involved in a number of criminal acts, no FIRs were registered against him.

He contended the petitioner is a land-grabber and is a habitual offender.

Raju also claimed merely because the petitioner is a politician, he cannot be permitted to bypass the remedy of filing regular bail application before the appropriate court.