NAVEEN SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 52 · Decided: 15-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
NAVEEN SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2021)
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
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 –
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
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-
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
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
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 52
52
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
53
court order and Respondent No. 2 has taken the benefit of such
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]
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
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
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
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 charged-sheeted having found prima facie case
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
NAVEEN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
thereafter it will not

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.