Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Sakir Khan vs Union Of India Thru. Directorate ... on 7 July, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38286
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11337 of 2024
Applicant :- Mohammad Sakir Khan
Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Misra,Ashish Kumar Singh,Pal Singh Yadav,Prathama Singh,Purnendu Chakravarty,Wakeel Ahmad Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay Nath Dubey,Kuldeep Srivastava,S M Singh Royekwar
Connected with
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11490 of 2024
Zeeshan Ali Khan versus Union of India
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. S M Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for DRI and perused the record.
It is alleged in the prosecution case that on a specific intelligence regarding a Maruti Ciaz car No. UP 32 JQ 7936 of Mohammad Samad Sidiqui alias Babar moving from Lucknow to Nautanwa carrying foreign origin smuggles gold to be delivered at Nautanwa, a team of DRI officers intercepted the said vehicle in presence of two independent witnesses near Koluhi, Maharajganj at about 7.15 a.m. and found that two persons were sitting inside the car. The person sitting at driver seat introduced himself as Sakir Khan and the other person adjacent to driver seat introduced himself as Zeeshan Khan. From the said vehicle, cash of Rs.1,20,00,000/- were allegedly recovered.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per prosecution case in para 14 of the complaint it was on specific intelligence that a Maruti car numbered above was carrying foreign origin smuggled gold to be delivered at Nautanwa, however, at the time of search, no gold was found. The alleged money of Rs.1.20,00,000/- is shown to have been recovered from a secret cavity made inside the said car. The car did not belong to the applicants; rather it was of the co-accused Mohammad Samad Siddiqui.
It is submitted that the recovered cash was the sale proceed of the gold. It is an Indian currency and not the foreign one and therefore, no case under Customs Act is made out. This fact as well as the statement under Section 108 Customs Act is still to be adjudicated under Customs Act. It is submitted that the complaint has been filed against five accused persons including the present applicant. No complaint has been filed against Samad Siddiqui alias Babar who has been granted bail by the court below.
It is submitted that it will be a joint trial in view of judgment of Apex Xourt in Vinay Tyagi versus Irshad Ali alias Deepak and others [2013 CRI L.J. 754 and therefore, adjudication proceedings will take some time and the complaint regarding the main master mind is yet to be filed which will further delay the proceedings. No useful purpose will be served in keeping the applicant behind bars.
It is lastly submitted that the complaint case is malicious as although while arresting the accused, two independent witnesses are said to have been the witness of recovery of alleged cash, none of the independent witnesses has been placed in the list of witnesses in the complaint case which raises serious doubt on the prosecution story. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and is in jail since 2.9.2024.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned counsel for D.R.I., though opposed bail, however, he could not deny that Mohammad Samad Siddiqui was the mastermind. He also could not give any justification as to why the independent witnesses have not been made witnesses in the complaint case by the prosecution.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the alleged two independent witnesses who were part of search and seizure proceedings have not been made witnesses in the prosecution case, the main accused Samad Siddiqui has been granted bail by the court below vide order dated 9.4.2025 annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed in Bail Application No.11337 of 2024 which is taken on record, and the maximum punishment is upto seven years, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the applicant is in jail since 2.9.2024, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am prima facie satisfied that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail and accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicants Zeeshan Ali Khan and Mohd. Sakir Khan, involved in Case Crime No.18 of 2024 under section 135(1)(b), 135(1)(i)(A) of Custom Act, P.S. DRI Lucknow Zonal Unit, district Lucknow be released on bail on their each furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
The applicants will not leave the country without permission of the court.
(vi) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Observation(s) made herein above shall not be considered as an expression of opinion on merit of the case.
Order Date :- 7.7.2025/kkb/
