9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, 467, 468, 471, 120 B IPC. It is required to be noted that before the said FIR was lodged, a writ petition was filed by the appellant herein before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench being Misc. Bench No. 37206 of 2018 for issuance of writ of mandamus to take action on the complaint made by him against Respondent No. 2 herein for committing forgery in Court record. At that time, it was alleged that there was a fabrication in the court record by way of using whitener in Sessions Trial No. 89 A/01, State vs. Mahesh, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC, Crime Case No. 152/2000, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao. The court record was tampered with and instead of Mahesh , Ramesh had been written. Considering the gravity of the matter, the High Court called for the comments of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Unnao. It appears that earlier in the order dated 14.11.2018 the very Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Unnao made certain observations with respect to the fabrication in the court record. Therefore, the High Court thought it fit to call his comments as to in context of which document the observations were made in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions Judge Court No. 5, Unnao, in which a certified copy of the decision and the order dated 23.12.2002 on behalf of Mahesh Singh, Paper No. B/346 was presented, showing that Shri Mahesh Singh was acquitted in the said case. Having found that Mahesh Singh was acquitted in all the cases shown in the Gangsters Act including the Special Case No. 583/2000, the Learned Special Court (Gangsters Act) acquitted the said Mahesh Singh. The said Mahesh Singh is the beneficiary of the interpolation/manipulation/forgery of the court record therefore, it was alleged that Respondent No. 2 herein original accused has committed the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B IPC. 3.1 That thereafter and after his arrest, Respondent No. 2 herein Mahesh accused filed an application for regular bail before the Learned Sessions Court. That the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao by a detailed order dated 07.11.2019 dismissed the said bail application observing that the allegations against the accused are very serious of forging the court s records and that the accused is the beneficiary of the said forgery and therefore this is not a fit case to release him on bail. That thereafter Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced before the court in another case under the Gangsters Act and in the case under the Gangsters Act it was submitted on the basis of the forged order that he has been acquitted and considering that as one of the ground the Special Court, Gangsters Act acquitted the Respondent No. 2 herein accused. It is submitted that therefore Respondent No. 2 accused as such got the benefit of such forged, manipulated court order. It is submitted that even according to the respondent accused the manipulation might be by his brother Pappu Singh who was Pairokar on behalf of the appellant. It is submitted that as such in the proceedings under the Gangsters Act, a common defence was filed on behalf of Pappu Singh as well as the accused Mahesh. It is submitted that therefore, even if it is assumed for the time being that the same might have been done by Pappu Singh his brother, in that case also, Mahesh is the beneficiary of such forged and manipulated court record and, in fact, he got the benefit of such forged and manipulated court record, the accused must be aware and he cannot plead the ignorance. 5.3 It is submitted that as such respondent Mahesh Singh absconded for 18 years in Crime Case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that this Court in catena of cases has observed that while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, the Court should examine as to whether: (i) accused can tamper with the evidence. (ii) influence witness (iii) evade trial/investigation. 7.1 It is submitted that in the present case Respondent No. 2 has been granted police protection pursuant to the order passed by this Court. It is submitted that therefore there are no chances to evade trial and/or to influence the witnesses. It is submitted that even the charge sheet has been filed now and the charges have been framed in 2019. It is submitted that in the present matter, all the six witnesses are the Government witnesses and most of them are court s staff and therefore, there are no chances for the respondent to influence them. It is submitted similarly that all the documentary evidence in the present case are also in the custody of the Court and therefore no chance of the accused to tamper with the same. In support, she has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of P.Chidambaram vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2020) 13 SCC 337. It is further submitted that as per catena of decision of this Court, bail is the rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... motivated and therefore it is requested not to entertain the present appeal at the instance of the appellant. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, whereby Respondent No. 2 accused is released on bail. 8.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that Respondent No. 2 accused is facing the trial for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B IPC. It is also required to be noted that the FIR has been lodged by the record keeper of the court on the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Unnao. After the enquiry report submitted by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Unnao in which it was stated that the Court record has been manipulated and forged, the High Court directed the Learned District and Sessions Judge to look into the report and take further action and thereafter the FIR has been lodged against the respondent accused for the aforesaid offences. If we consider the allegations, in that case, the allegations are very serious of tampering and/or manipulating the court record and Respondent no.2 has taken the benefit of such forg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge has been framed. 8.3 Now, so far as the submissions on behalf of the accused that he has not obtained the certified copy of the judgment and order of the Learned Sessions Court dated 23.12.2002 in which there are allegations of forging and manipulation and he has not produced the same in the case against him under the Gangsters Act is concerned. From the order passed by Learned Special Court Gangsters Act, it appears that the judgment and order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge dated 23.12.2002 was produced in which Respondent No. 2 accused Mahesh was shown as acquitted. On the basis of the same, the Learned Special Court acquitted Respondent No. 2 accused. Therefore, in fact, he is the beneficiary of the said forged/manipulated court order. The Special Court has taken note of the order. It is the case on behalf of the accused that it might have been produced by his brother Pappu Singh who was doing Pairokar on his behalf. The aforesaid is neither here nor there. Once he is the beneficiary of such forged/manipulated court order and having taken advantage of such order thereafter it will not be open for the respondent accused to contend that it might have been done by his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
