NAVEEN SINGHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

52                       [2021]
               SUPREME COURT    7 S.C.R. 52
                             REPORTS                         [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A                              NAVEEN SINGH
                                        v.
                THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2021)
B                              MARCH 15, 2021
             [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                        M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
            Bail – Forgery / manipulation of court records – Respondent
     no.2 was beneficiary of the same – FIR u/ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B
C
     IPC – Sessions Judge dismissed bail application of respondent no.2 –
     High Court, however, released him on bail – If justified – Held: High
     Court released respondent no.2 on bail in a routine and casual manner
     without adverting to the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of
     the matter relating to forgery and /or manipulation of the court order –
D    It did not at all consider that respondent no.2 was charged for offences
     u/ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and that the maximum punishment
     for offence u/s. 467 IPC is 10 years and fine / imprisonment for life and
     even for offence u/s. 471 IPC the punishment is similar – If the court
     record is manipulated and/or forged, it will hamper the administration
     of justice – Forging/ manipulating the court record and taking benefit
E
     of the same stands on altogether a different footing than forging/
     manipulating other documents between two individuals – Considering
     the very serious allegations of forging/manipulating court order and
     respondent No.2 having taken advantage of the same, the High Court
     was not justified in releasing him on bail – Merely because the charge-
F    sheet was filed is no ground to release respondent no.2 on bail –
     Impugned judgment of High Court releasing respondent No.2 on bail
     accordingly unsustainable – IPC – ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B –
     Administration of Justice.
           Allowing the appeal, the Court
G          HELD: 1. Respondent No. 2 – accused is facing the trial
     for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.
     The FIR has been lodged by the record keeper of the court on
     the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge. The
     allegations are very serious of tampering and/or manipulating the
H
                                        52
   NAVEEN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                  53


court order and Respondent No. 2 has taken the benefit of such        A
forged/manipulated court order in another case. After the
investigation is concluded, the charge-sheet has been filed against
Respondent No. 2 – accused and even the charges are also
reported to be framed. Thus, a prima facie case is found against
the accused for the aforesaid offences. [Para 8.1][61-E, F-H]
                                                                      B
      2. The High Court released 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 it has only
observed that since the innocence and complicity of the accused       C
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    D
released on bail. However, the High Court has not at all
considered that the accused is charged for the offences under
Section 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 there is similar punishment. Apart from that, forging         E
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   F
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 charged-sheeted having found prima facie case        G
and the charge has been framed. [Para 8.2][62-A-F]
     3. Once respondent no.2 is the beneficiary of such forged/
manipulated court order and having taken advantage of such order

                                                                      H
54            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A    thereafter it will not be open for respondent no.2 to contend that
     it might have been done by his brother who was doing Pairokar
     on his behalf. [Para 8.3][63-B]
            4. Suffice it is to say that in the facts and circumstances of
     the case and looking to the very serious allegations of forging/
B    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 charge-sheet is filed is no ground to release
     the accused on bail. The submission on behalf of the accused was
     that as the record is now in the court’s custody there is no chance of
     tampering, but the allegation against the respondent accused are of
C    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. [Para 8.3][63-C-E]
D          5. 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. [Para 9][64-A]
           P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation
E          (2020) 13 SCC 337; Sharad T. Kabra v. Union of India
           (2018) 14 SCC 493; Seema Singh v. CBI & Anr. (2018)
           16 SCC 10 : [2018] 3 SCR 355; Manish Solanki @
           Bansi v. The State of Rajasthan (2019) 4 SCC 340; and
           Amanullah & Anr v. State of Bihar & Ors (2016) 6 SCC
F          699: [2016] 2 SCR 1027 – referred to.
                                Case Law Reference
           (2020) 13 SCC 337            referred to        Para 7.1
           (2018) 14 SCC 493            referred to        Para 7.1
G          [2018] 3 SCR 355             referred to        Para 7.1
           (2019) 4 SCC 340             referred to        Para 7.1
           [2016] 2 SCR 1027            referred to        Para 7.5


H
   NAVEEN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                           55


       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal                       A
No. 320 of 2021.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Bail
Application No. 1398 of 2020.
       Kanhaiya Singhal, Prasanna, Chetan Bhardwaj, Advs. for the              B
Appellant.
       V.K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., Adarsh Upadhyay, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar,
Shakti Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       M. R. SHAH, J.                                                          C
       1. 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 Respondent No.2 herein - accused
                                                                               D
on bail in Case Crime No.433 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
120-B 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, 120-B          E
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     F
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,            G
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         H
56             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A    Judge sent his comments/enquiry report dated 09.01.2019 indicating that
     the judicial record pertaining to Sessions Trial No.89-A/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.
B
     Thereafter on the order of the Learned District and Sessions Judge,
     Unnao, the Record keeper has lodged the 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
C    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
D    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
E    on 04.05.2012. In the first page of the decision; case of Mahesh was
     separated as he 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
F    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
G    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
H    shown in the Gangsters Act including the Special Case No.583/2000, the
   NAVEEN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                             57
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Learned Special Court (Gangsters Act) acquitted the said Mahesh Singh.           A
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         B
– 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.        C
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           D
named Pappu 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:
                                                                                 E
       “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      F
       submissions made by of learned counsel for the bail-applicant 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      G
supported the present appeal.
      5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
vehemently 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.                        H
58             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A           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
B
     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
C    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
D    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
E    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
F    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.
            5.4. It is further submitted that as such no reasons whatsoever
G    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
H    detailed discussion on merits.
   NAVEEN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                          59
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      5.5. It is submitted that while releasing Respondent No.2 –             A
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.
                                                                              B
      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.
       6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported
the present appeal. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of Respondent      C
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        D
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           E
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 is submitted by Learned Counsel that
by releasing the accused on bail, the High Court has acted within the         F
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:
                                                                              G
      (i)     accused can tamper with the evidence.
      (ii)    influence witness
      (iii)   evade trial/investigation.

                                                                              H
60             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A            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
B
     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
C    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
D
     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.
E    It is submitted that neither in the FIR nor in the charge-sheet 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 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.
F
           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.
G         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.
H
    NAVEEN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                              61
                      [M. R. SHAH, J.]

        7.5. It is submitted that in any case the appellant has no locus to        A
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 in keeping the accused behind the bar, as the
appellant and his father are accused in FIR No.305 of 2019 with respect
                                                                                   B
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.                                                                C
        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               D
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              E
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           F
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          G
concluded, the charge-sheet 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          H
62             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A    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
B
     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
C    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
D    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
E    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
F    has been charge-sheeted 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
G    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
H
   NAVEEN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                              63
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Court acquitted Respondent No.2 -accused. Therefore, in fact, he is the           A
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
                                                                                  B
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
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           C
merits may affect the case of the accused. 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 charge-sheet is filed is no ground to release         D
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         E
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             F
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    G
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.

                                                                                  H
64              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A          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
B    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 proceeded further and conducted in
     accordance with law and on its own merits.
C           Present appeal is allowed accordingly.


     Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                       Appeal allowed.




D




E




F




G




H