9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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. 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 fabricat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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) 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 bai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent 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 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 chanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther 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 on the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Unnao. After the enquiry report submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 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 Learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
