Allahabad High Court

MOHD SHADABversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 20 April 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court denied bail, finding that prima facie evidence of involvement and the seriousness of the offence preclude release pending trial.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Tanu in a case under Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Uttar Pradesh B.N.S., alleging forgery of GST invoices and revenue loss. The applicant contended that he was not named in the FIR, had no prior criminal record, and posed no risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence. The State argued that the investigation had seized forged documents, multiple bogus firms and substantial sums, establishing prima‑facie involvement. The Court examined the material on record, held that the evidence could not be ignored at the bail stage and that the gravity of the offence outweighed the applicant’s claims. Accordingly, the bail application was rejected, with the Court noting that its observations were confined to the bail question and would not affect the pending trial.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused pending trial in view of alleged forgery and revenue loss.
Whether the applicant’s claim of non‑inclusion in the FIR and lack of criminal antecedents suffices for bail.
Whether the prima facie evidence collected by the investigation justifies denial of bail.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of flight or tampering with evidence if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh B.N.S. — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2)

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
forgery
GST fraud
prima facie evidence
flight risk
Uttar Pradesh B.N.S.
section 338
section 336(3)
section 340(2)
section 318(4)
section 61(2)

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8481 of 2026

Mohd Shadab
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abdul Majeed, Sufia Saba
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Ms. Sufia Saba, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D. P. S.
Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

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.

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.

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,
BAIL No. 8481 of 2026
2

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

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.

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

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.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be
BAIL No. 8481 of 2026
3

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.

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.

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.

April 21, 2026
pks
(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…