2021 (3) TMI 1466 - SC - Indian Laws

Legality of granting bail - fabrication in the court record by way of using whitener in Sessions Trial - appellant submitted that while releasing Respondent No. 2 accused on bail, the High Court has not at all considered the seriousness of the charge against the accused and the gravity of the matter - locus to file the present application for cancellation of the bail - HELD THAT - On considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that High Court has not adverted itself to the seriousness of the case and the offences alleged against Respondent no.2 accused and the gravity of the matter. From the impugned order, it appears that the High Court has released Respondent No. 2 accused on bail in a routine and casual manner and without adverting to the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of the matter relating to forgery and/or manipulating the court order. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that High Court has only observed that since the innocence and complicity of the accused can be decided only after taking evidence with regard thereto, without commenting anything on merit as to the complicity, involvement and severeness of the offences, the case being triable by the Magistrate and the charge sheet having been filed and the accused is languishing in jail since 22.11.2018, is entitled to be released on bail. However, the High Court has not at all considered that the accused is charged for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B IPC and the maximum punishment for offence under Section 467 IPC is 10 years and fine/imprisonment for life and even for the offence under Section 471 IPC the similar punishment. Apart from that forging and/or manipulating the court record and getting benefit of such forged/manipulated court record is a very serious offence. If the Court record is manipulated and/or forged, it will hamper the administration of justice. Forging/manipulating the Court record and taking the benefit of the same stands on altogether a different footing than forging/manipulating other documents between two individuals - the High Court ought to have been more cautious/serious in granting the bail to a person who is alleged to have forged/manipulated the court record and taken the benefit of such manipulated and forged court record more particularly when he has been charge sheeted having found prima facie case and the charge has been framed. Whether the appellant has no locus to file the present application for cancellation of the bail? - HELD THAT - It is required to be noted that in fact, it was the appellant who approached the High Court alleging tampering of court record by the Respondent No. 2 accused and thereafter, the High Court directed the Learned Additional Sessions Judge to submit his comments and thereafter the Learned Additional Sessions Judge submitted its enquiry report and thereafter, the FIR has been lodged - Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has no locus to file the present application for cancellation of the bail. Even otherwise in a case like this, where the allegations are of tampering with the court order and for whatever reason the State has not filed the bail application the locus is not that much important and it is insignificant. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing Respondent No. 2 accused on bail is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of granting bail to an accused charged with forgery and manipulation of court records.
2. Consideration of the seriousness of the charges and the gravity of the matter in granting bail.
3. The role of the appellant in challenging the bail order and their locus standi.
4. Examination of procedural errors or omissions by the High Court in granting bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Granting Bail:

The primary issue revolves around the High Court's decision to grant bail to Respondent No. 2, who was charged with serious offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC, which involve forgery and manipulation of court records. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the High Court adequately considered the gravity of these charges. It was noted that the High Court released the accused on bail in a "routine and casual manner" without addressing the seriousness of the offenses, which include the potential for life imprisonment under Section 467 IPC.

2. Seriousness of Charges and Gravity of the Matter:

The Supreme Court highlighted that the allegations against Respondent No. 2 were of a severe nature, involving the manipulation of court records to benefit in another case under the Gangsters Act. The Court emphasized that forging and manipulating court records is a grave offense that could undermine the administration of justice. The High Court's failure to consider the seriousness of these allegations and the potential impact on the judicial process was a significant oversight.

3. Appellant's Locus Standi:

The appellant's role in challenging the bail order was examined, with arguments presented that they lacked the locus standi to file the appeal. However, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant had initially brought the tampering of court records to the High Court's attention, leading to an inquiry and subsequent FIR. Given this involvement, the appellant was deemed to have a legitimate interest in the matter, and their appeal was considered valid.

4. Procedural Errors by the High Court:

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not providing sufficient reasons for granting bail, especially given the serious nature of the charges. The High Court's decision was viewed as lacking a proper assessment of the potential risks, such as the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Supreme Court also pointed out that the High Court did not adequately weigh the maximum punishments prescribed for the offenses.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment unsustainable due to its failure to consider the seriousness of the charges and the potential implications of forgery and manipulation of court records. The bail granted to Respondent No. 2 was quashed, and the accused was ordered to surrender forthwith. The Supreme Court's decision underscored the importance of a thorough judicial assessment when considering bail in cases involving serious allegations that could affect the integrity of the judicial process. The appeal was allowed, with the Supreme Court emphasizing that its observations were confined to the bail issue, and the trial should proceed on its merits.