The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to former police circle officer Aley Hasan Khan in all 26 cases filed against him in Rampur. These cases alleged that he, in collaboration with former minister Azam Khan, was involved in the unlawful land grabbing for Mohammad Ali Jauhar University.
The FIRs alleged that Khan and Azam Khan had coerced and pressurized land tenure holders (farmers) into executing sale deeds in favor of the university. Additionally, they were accused of threatening to falsely implicate them in cases, detaining them in lock-up for a day, and forcibly taking over their land.
Justice Raj Beer Singh, while allowing the bail application of Aley Hasan Khan for all 26 cases, made several observations. He noted that the FIRs in all cases had been filed after a significant delay of approximately 14-15 years. Furthermore, these FIRs lacked essential details such as dates, times, or specific locations of the alleged incidents. There were no allegations that the applicant possessed any of the disputed land pieces belonging to the complainants, and no sale deeds were executed in the applicant’s favor. Additionally, it was established that the applicant-accused had no role as the founder, trustee, or member of the trust running the university.
The court pointed out that the main co-accused, Mohd. Azam Khan, founder/trustee of the trust in question, had already been granted bail. Aley Hasan Khan had been in custody since May 7, 2023, and investigations in all the cases had concluded, with charge-sheets already submitted in court. Thus, the court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cases, concluded that a case for bail was warranted.
Aley Hasan Khan’s counsel had previously argued that these FIRs were lodged several years after his retirement due to political motivations. The counsel highlighted that the applicant had retired from service on June 30, 2017, and that multiple cases were registered against him within two months of his retirement, seemingly influenced by the ruling party of the state.
The state counsel opposed the bail application, contending that the applicant had played a significant role in obtaining illegal possession of the complainants’ land.
