Mohd Shadab Vs State of U.P.

The instant bail application on behalf of the applicant Tanu seeks enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 420 of 2025, under Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, vide order dated 11.02.2026 and the applicant is stated to be languishing in jail since 13.01.2026.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant before addressing the court on merits of the case has invited the attention if this Court to the orders dated 19.03.2026 and 13.04.2026 of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The order dated 19.03.2026 required the learned AGA to obtain instructions regarding status of investigation as well as the material against the applicant collected during the investigation. The order dated 13.04.2026 in the absence of the requisite information called for required the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur to appear before the Court and explain his conduct for not complying with the order of the Court dated 19.03.2026 despite receiving information on 24.03.2026 through e-Mail from the office of the Government Advocate.

¶13

Pursuant to the order dated 13.04.2026, a personal affidavit of Sri Vyom Bindal the present Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur has been filed in compliance thereof which is taken on record. Sri Vyom Bindal,

¶14

BAIL No. 8481 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur is also present in Court and his presence is duly acknowledged by the Court.

¶17

The Court has gone through the personal affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur and is satisfied by the explanation offered for not being in a position to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 13.04.2036. The unconditional apology tendered is accepted and the personal presence of the Officer on future dates is exempted.

¶18

Learned AGA has filed compliance affidavit which is taken on record.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case crime number. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced in the statement of co-accused. She submits that in the present case charge sheet against the applicant has been filed and as such he is not required for any further custodial interrogation. She submits that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. She submits that the applicant was working as Accountant and the applicant has no connection in the aforesaid crime. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.01.2026. She submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit. She submits that there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, the bail has been prayed for.

¶20

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail, but could not dispute the above submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant. He further submits that the applicant on the basis of fake and forged documents registered bogus firms in the name of Shorya Trader and Yogesh Trader and claimed ITC for a sum of Rs. 27,67,30,778.70 and Rs. 97,41,055.65 respectively and in this way the applicant caused revenue loss to the Government. He submits that from the possession of the applicant, 7 mobile phones, one laptop, 52 invoices/e-way bills of 52 bogus firms. He submits that the applicant used to upload forged invoices/e-way bills on the GST Portal. He submits that the Investigation Officer has collected credible evidence against the applicant which establishes that the applicant is extensively involved in the aforesaid forgery as such no indulgence may be granted to the applicant.

¶21

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be

¶22

BAIL No. 8481 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima-facie, the involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence.

¶25

In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.

¶26

It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case.

¶27

April 21, 2026 pks

¶28

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Shadab v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Shadab v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Saud Alias Hatela Vs State of U.P.

Durga Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Sudhanshu Chauhan @ S.K. Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tanu Vs State of U.P.

Manjeet Singh vs State of U.P.

Farhat Rafiq Vs State of U.P.