Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has suspended the sentences of Samajwadi Party leader Mohd. Azam Khan and his son Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan and released them on bail in the Rampur case relating to an alleged second PAN Card used in the latter’s election nomination. The Court, however, refused to stay their conviction, citing their criminal antecedents. A Bench of Justice Samit Gopal passed the order on 29 October 2026, after reserving it on 15 October 2026.
The two Criminal Revisions (Nos. 3893 and 3685 of 2026) challenge the judgment dated 17.11.2025 of the Special Judge (MP/MLA), Rampur, in Criminal Case No. 311 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 980 of 2019. The trial court had convicted both under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appeals by the accused were dismissed by the appellate court, which allowed the State’s appeal and a revision for enhancement, enhancing the sentences by orders dated 20.4.2026 and 23.5.2026.
After enhancement, the longest sentence is 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment (with a fine of ₹2 lakh) under Section 467 IPC for Mohd. Azam Khan, and 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment (with a fine of ₹1 lakh) under the same section for Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan. The Court also noted that the State has separately filed Criminal Revision No. 5514 of 2026 seeking further enhancement, which is connected with these matters.
According to the FIR dated 6.12.2019, Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan allegedly held a PAN Card showing his date of birth as 01.01.1993. It was alleged that, along with his father, he got a second PAN Card with the date of birth 30.09.1990 prepared and used it in his nomination papers for the 34-Swar Constituency on 24.01.2017, to overcome the eligibility issue due to age.
The revisionists contended that no offence was made out, that no one was defrauded or deceived, and that the case amounted to double jeopardy, since the same document was alleged to have been used for obtaining a passport, a case in which Abdullah Azam Khan was acquitted. They pointed out that Azam Khan, aged about 74 years, had spent 4 years, 1 month and 9 days in custody, and Abdullah Azam Khan 3 years, 6 months and 13 days, including remission. They also said conviction would disqualify them from contesting the forthcoming Legislative Assembly elections.
The State and the private respondents opposed the pleas vehemently. They submitted that the second PAN Card was made only to change the date of birth, that both revisionists declared the second date of birth on oath in affidavits filed with the nomination, and that Azam Khan, a minister at the time, influenced the agencies under his control. On double jeopardy, they argued that it can be considered only at the final hearing, and, relying on Afjal Ansari v. State of U.P., that suspension of conviction is an exception and not an automatic entitlement.
On suspension of sentence, the Court noted the periods already undergone, the nature of the occurrence and the fact that the case involves a fixed term of sentence. It held that this was a fit case for bail and directed the release of both revisionists on a personal bond with two sureties each in like amount. It also directed them to deposit half of the fine imposed by the appellate court forthwith.
Turning to suspension of conviction, the Court referred to the settled position, drawn from decisions including Ravikant S. Patil, Navjot Singh Sidhu, Shyam Narain Pandey and Lok Prahari, that a stay of conviction is “not the rule but is an exception” to be resorted to in rare cases. It also relied on its earlier ruling in Vikram Singh Saini v. State of U.P., where the plea of disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was held not to be a ground by itself for suspending a conviction. The Court noted Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India on the criminalisation of politics.
The Court recorded that, on their own showing, Mohd. Azam Khan is involved in 92 criminal cases and has been previously convicted in 8 matters, with 81 cases pending, while Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan is involved in 46 cases, has been convicted by a Magistrate in 4 matters, and has 44 cases pending. In view of their criminal antecedents, previous convictions and the large number of cases, it found no justifiable reason to entertain the plea for suspension of conviction and dismissed it for both.
The Court also recorded that it had repeatedly given the revisionists the option to argue the revisions finally, which they declined, pressing instead for the suspension applications to be decided first, while the State and the respondents were ready for final hearing. The revisions were admitted and their hearing expedited, and they have been listed for final hearing in the third week of January 2027.
Appearances: For the Revisionists: Sri Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sri N.I. Jafri, Senior Advocates, assisted by Sri Shashwat Anand, Sri Tripurari Pal, Sri Sadrul Islam Jafri, Sri Ankur Azad, Sri Saumitra Anand and Sri Shashank Tiwari, Advocates. For the State: Sri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, A.G.A. For the First Informant: Sri Sharad Sharma, Advocate. For Opposite Party No. 4: Sri Vijay Vikram Singh, Advocate.
Case Title: Mohd Azam Khan v. State of U.P. and 3 others, Criminal Revision No. 3893 of 2026, with Mohd Abdullah Azam Khan v. State of U.P. and others, Criminal Revision No. 3685 of 2026
!["No Loudspeakers For Azan, No Fundamental Right To Create Noise," Says Allahabad HC To Two Mosques [Read Judgment]](/secure/uploads/2020/01/lj_4995_Allahabad_HC_AZAN.jpg)
