Locus standi - the appellant has no locus to file the present application for cancellation of the bail is concerned, 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
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 320 OF 2021
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2545 of 2020]
NAVEEN SINGH .. Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. .. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Bail Application
Case No.1398 of 2020 by which the High Court has released
2
Respondent No.2 herein accused on bail in Case Crime No.433
of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC registered
in Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao, the original informant
has preferred the present appeal.
3. That the Record Keeper of the Civil Court, Unnao on the
order of the District Judge, Unnao has lodged an FIR against
Respondent No.2 herein for the offences under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 120B 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.89A/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.
3
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 order dated
14.11.2018. It appears that thereafter the Learned Additional
Sessions Judge sent his comments/enquiry report dated
09.01.2019 indicating that the judicial record pertaining to
Sessions Trial No.89A/01, State vs. Mahesh, under Sections
307, 504 and 506 IPC, Crime Case No.152 of 2000, Police
Station Makhi, District Unnao, was tampered with. The High
Court directed District and Sessions Judge, Unnao to take notice
of the record dated 09.01.2019 and ensure that the needful is
done. Thereafter on the order of the Learned District and
Sessions Judge, Unnao, the Record keeper has lodged the
4
aforesaid FIR against Respondent No.2 herein – Mahesh for the
offences stated hereinabove.
As per the averments and allegations made in the FIR, a
common order was passed on 23.12.2002 by the Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao in Sessions Case
No.583/2000 State Vs. Pappu Singh under Section
307/504/506 IPC PS Makhi, District Unnao Case No.152/2000,
Sessions Case Crime No.153/2000 and Session Case
No.89/2001 State Vs. Guddu Singh under Sections
307/504/506 IPC Crime No.152/2000 that the certified copy of
the same was obtained by the appellant – Shri Naveen Singh on
04.05.2012 in which name of any of the accused was not
extended. A certified copy of the decision of the said sessions
case dated 23.12.2002 was obtained by the appellant herein in
which the name of Respondent No.2 – Mahesh was found to be
mentioned in the order. Though the judgment was not passed in
the above sessions case against Mahesh. A certified copy of the
said decision/order was obtained on 04.05.2012. In the first
page of the decision; case of Mahesh was separated as he
5
absconded. The certified copy of the said order dated
23.12.2002 was received by the appellant on 17.12.2015, then
in its order on page 10, the name of the accused – Mahesh was
added with the pen. Therefore, it was alleged that first the name
has been inscribed and the whitener has been applied, which
seems to be a fraud. Second, the name of the accused –Ramesh
has been added/inserted in page no.1, while there was no
accused by name of Ramesh. That a Special Case No.11/12
Crime No.132/2002 under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters
and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Gangsters Act’, against Mahesh was pending
and under consideration in Special Court Judge/Gangster
Act/Additional Sessions 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)
6
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, 120B 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 Respondent No.2 herein accused approached
the High Court by way of Criminal Misc. Case No.1398/2020 for
regular bail. Before the High Court, it was also contended on
behalf of the accused that there is a possibility that the
manipulation in the certified copy of the judgment issued by the
Court might have been committed by his Pairokar named Pappu
7
Singh, his brother who applied and obtained the copy. It was
his case that he was unknown of any such act as he was not
physically involved. By the impugned judgment and order, the
High Court has released Respondent No.2 – accused on bail by
observing in one para as under:
“Since the innocence and complicity
of the accused can be decided only after
taking evidence with regard thereto.
Therefore, without commenting anything
on merit of the case, as to the complicity,
involvement and severances of the
offences, the case being triable by
Magistrate and the chargesheet having
been filed and the accused is languishing
in jail since 22.11.2018, I find force in the
submissions made by of learned counsel
for the bailapplicant for grant of bail.”
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing
Respondent No.2 – accused on bail, the original informant has
preferred the present appeal. State has supported the present
appeal.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
vehemently submitted that while releasing Respondent No.2
8
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.
5.1 It is submitted that the High Court ought to have
appreciated that this is a case of manipulation and forgery of the
court record and as per the enquiry report of the Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, there was interpolation in the court
record. It is submitted that interpolation and manipulation of
the court record is a very serious offence. It is submitted that
earlier High Court took note of the enquiry report submitted by
the Additional Sessions Judge and thereafter directed the
District and Sessions Judge to take further steps and thereafter
on the order passed by Learned District and Sessions Judge, the
FIR was lodged.
5.2 It is submitted that as such Respondent No.2 – accused is
the beneficiary of such manipulation/forgery. It is submitted
that as such manipulated and forged court order was 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
9
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 No.152/2000 and
Sessions Case No.583/2000 and, in fact, his trial was separated.
10
5.4 It is further submitted that as such no reasons whatsoever
have been given by the High Court while releasing Respondent
No.2 – accused on bail. It is submitted that when Respondent
No.2 – accused is facing the very serious allegations of forgery
and manipulation of the court record and looking to the gravity
of the matter, the High Court ought to have given some reasons
while releasing him on bail, though no detailed discussion on
merits.
5.5 It is submitted that while releasing Respondent No.2 –
accused on bail, the High Court only stated that the case is
triable by the Magistrate Court and that he has undergone 1
year and 6 months imprisonment. It is submitted that however
the High Court has not considered that the maximum
punishment is 10 years and even imprisonment for life as per
Section 467 read with Section 471 IPC.
Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the
present appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court releasing Respondent No.2
accused on bail.
11
6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has
supported the present appeal. A counter affidavit is filed on
behalf of Respondent No.1 State of U.P. It is submitted that
Mahesh Singh is a history sheeter and many cases of murder,
attempt to murder, Gangsters Act, etc. are pending against him.
It is submitted that on investigation it is found that, in fact, the
Respondent No.2 – accused has got the benefit of the forged and
manipulated court order and got himself acquitted in the case
under the Gangsters Act. It is submitted that therefore looking
to the seriousness of the offence as alleged against Respondent
No.2 – accused and considering the gravity of the matter, the
High Court ought not to have released Respondent No.2 –
accused on bail.
7. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of Respondent No.2 while opposing the present appeal and
supporting the impugned judgment and order of the High Court
releasing Respondent No.2 on bail has vehemently submitted
that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court
has not committed any error in releasing the accused on bail. It
12
is submitted by Learned Counsel that by releasing the accused
on bail, the High Court has acted within the well known
parameters of grant of bail.
It is submitted 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 chargesheet 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
13
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 and jail is the exception. It
is submitted that, in fact Respondent No.2 has been framed and
falsely implicated. It is further submitted that in catena of cases
this Court, in the cases involving Sections 468, 471 IPC, has
granted bail to the accused while considering the period of
incarceration. Reliance is placed on Sharad T. Kabra vs.
Union of India, (2018) 14 SCC 493; Seema Singh vs. CBI,
(2018) 16 SCC 10; Manish Solanki vs. State of Rajasthan,
(2019) 4 SCC 340. It is further submitted that even it cannot be
said that the allegations made in the FIR are prima facie
established. It is submitted that neither in the FIR nor in the
chargesheet it has been mentioned that Mahesh Singh and/or
by any of his acquaintances has applied for certified copy of
order dated 23.12.2002. It is submitted that if the said order
14
has not been obtained by Mahesh Singh or by any of his
acquaintances, then the issue of using it in S.T. No.11 of 2012
does not arise.
7.2. Number of other submissions have been made by the
Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 to the effect
that Respondent No.2 accused Mahesh has not used the order
alleged to have been fabricated in the case against him under
the Gangsters Act.
7.3 It is further submitted that even it is also not true that
Respondent No.2 – accused has absconded for last 18 years as
alleged.
7.4 It is further submitted by Learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the accused that now the appellant and the State are
sharing hand in gloves against the accused.
7.5 It is submitted that in any case the appellant has no locus
to assail the grant of bail sought by Respondent No.2. It is
submitted that he is neither the complainant nor the affected
person from the alleged offence in Case Crime No.433 of 2019.
It is submitted that on the contrary, he has his personal motive
15
in keeping the accused behind the bar, as the appellant and his
father are accused in FIR No.305 of 2019 with respect to killing
the appellant’s wife. Relying upon the decision of this Court in
the case of Amanullah vs. State of Bihar, (2016) 6 SCC 699, it
is submitted that the present application at the instance of the
appellant who is a third person and who is not connected with
the matter under consideration and is having a personal
grievance against the accused may not be entertained.
7.6 It is submitted that even the present petition is being
politically 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, 120B IPC. It is also required to be noted
that the FIR has been lodged by the record keeper of the court
16
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 forged/manipulated court order in another
case. It is also required to be noted that now after the
investigation is concluded, the chargesheet has been filed
against the Respondent – accused and even the charges have
also reported to be framed. Thus, a prima facie case is found
against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
8.2 If we consider 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
17
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, 120B 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
18
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.
Therefore, 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 chargesheeted having found
prima facie case and the 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
19
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 respondentaccused to contend that it might have
been done by his brother Pappu Singh who was doing Pairokar
on his behalf.
At this stage, it is required to be noted that Pappu Singh
has died subsequently. We do not express anything further on
merits and go into detail as the trial is yet to take place and any
further observation on merits may affect the case of the accused.
20
Suffice it to say that in the facts and circumstances of the case
and looking to the very serious allegations of
forging/manipulating court order and having taken advantage of
the same, the High Court is not justified in releasing Respondent
No.2 on bail. Merely because the chargesheet is filed is no
ground to release the accused on bail. The submission on behalf
of the accused that as the record is now in the court’s custody
there is no chance of tampering is concerned, the allegation
against the respondent accused are of
tampering/forging/manipulating the court record which was in
the custody of the court. Seriousness of the offence is one of the
relevant considerations while considering the grant of bail,
which has not been considered at all by the High Court while
releasing Respondent No.2 accused on bail.
8.4 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent –
accused that the appellant has no locus to file the present
application for cancellation of the bail is concerned, 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
21
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.
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, 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.
Now Respondent No.2 accused to surrender forthwith as a
consequence of cancellation of the bail granted by the High
Court, if not surrendered. However, it is made clear that any
observations made by this Court in the present order be treated
to have been confined to the grant of bail and the trial to be
22
proceeded further and conducted in accordance with law and on
its own merits.
Present appeal is allowed accordingly.
…………………………………………J.
[Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud]
….………….………………………….J.
[M. R. Shah]
New Delhi,
March 15, 2021
