LEGAL ISSUE: Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with forging court records.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Naveen Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Judgment Date: March 15, 2021
Date of the Judgment: March 15, 2021
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2545 of 2020)
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and M. R. Shah, J.
Can the manipulation of court records lead to the cancellation of bail, even if the accused claims they were not directly involved? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving alleged forgery of court documents. The court’s decision highlights the seriousness with which it views any tampering with judicial records.
This judgment revolves around an appeal against the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench’s decision to grant bail to an accused charged with forging court records. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, emphasized the gravity of such offenses and ultimately canceled the bail.
The bench consisted of Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah. The judgment was authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The case originated from a complaint by Naveen Singh, the appellant, regarding the alleged forgery of court records by Respondent No. 2, Mahesh. The matter came to light during a review of court records in Sessions Trial No. 89-A/01, where alterations were found.
Specifically, the name “Mahesh” was allegedly changed to “Ramesh” using whitener in the court records. This manipulation was initially brought to the attention of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which then sought comments from the Additional Sessions Judge.
The Additional Sessions Judge’s enquiry report confirmed the tampering, leading the High Court to direct the District and Sessions Judge, Unnao, to take necessary action. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged against Mahesh for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The FIR alleged that a common order dated 23.12.2002, which was initially issued without mentioning Mahesh’s name, was later altered to include his name. A certified copy of this altered order was then used in a case under the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, to secure Mahesh’s acquittal.
The appellant, Naveen Singh, had obtained a certified copy of the order dated 23.12.2002 on 04.05.2012, which did not include the name of any accused. However, another certified copy of the same order obtained later, on 17.12.2015, showed the name of Mahesh added with a pen on page 10.
The prosecution argued that the manipulation of court records was done to benefit Mahesh, who was facing charges under the Gangsters Act.
Mahesh, after his arrest, applied for bail which was rejected by the Sessions Court but was later granted by the High Court, leading to the present appeal by the original informant, Naveen Singh.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000 | Crime Case No. 152/2000 registered at Police Station Makhi, District Unnao, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC. |
| 23.12.2002 | Common order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, in Sessions Case No. 583/2000, and other related cases. |
| 04.05.2012 | Appellant, Naveen Singh, obtains a certified copy of the order dated 23.12.2002, where no accused name was extended. |
| 17.12.2015 | Appellant obtains another certified copy of the same order, where the name of Mahesh was added with a pen on page 10. |
| 2018 | Naveen Singh files a writ petition before the High Court alleging forgery in court records. |
| 14.11.2018 | Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Unnao, makes observations regarding fabrication in court records. |
| 09.01.2019 | Additional Sessions Judge sends enquiry report confirming tampering of judicial record. |
| 2019 | FIR lodged against Mahesh under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. |
| 07.11.2019 | Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, dismisses Mahesh’s bail application. |
| 22.05.2020 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, grants bail to Mahesh. |
| 15.03.2021 | Supreme Court cancels the bail granted to Mahesh by the High Court. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, initially took cognizance of the complaint filed by Naveen Singh regarding the alleged tampering of court records. The High Court directed the Additional Sessions Judge to submit a report on the matter. Upon receiving the report confirming the tampering, the High Court instructed the District and Sessions Judge, Unnao, to take further action. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged against Mahesh.
The Sessions Court dismissed Mahesh’s bail application, citing the seriousness of the allegations. However, the High Court granted bail, observing that the case was triable by a Magistrate and that the accused had been in jail since 22.11.2018. This decision of the High Court was then challenged in the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
- Section 420, IPC: Deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
- Section 467, IPC: Addresses forgery of valuable security, will, etc. It states, “Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 468, IPC: Concerns forgery for the purpose of cheating.
- Section 471, IPC: Relates to using a forged document as genuine.
- Section 120-B, IPC: Pertains to criminal conspiracy.
These sections, when read together, outline the legal framework for prosecuting individuals involved in forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy, particularly concerning court records.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Naveen Singh):
- The High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the charges against the accused, which involve manipulation and forgery of court records.
- The interpolation in the court record, as confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge’s enquiry report, is a grave offense.
- Mahesh is the beneficiary of the forged court order, which was used to secure his acquittal in a case under the Gangsters Act.
- Even if the manipulation was done by Mahesh’s brother, Pappu Singh, Mahesh is still the beneficiary and cannot claim ignorance.
- The High Court did not provide adequate reasons for granting bail, only citing the case being triable by a Magistrate and the period of imprisonment served.
- The High Court failed to consider that the maximum punishment for the offences under Section 467 read with Section 471 of the IPC could be imprisonment for life.
State’s Arguments (Uttar Pradesh):
- The State supported the appellant’s arguments, stating that Mahesh is a history-sheeter with multiple cases pending against him.
- The investigation revealed that Mahesh benefited from the forged court order, which led to his acquittal in a case under the Gangsters Act.
- Given the seriousness of the alleged offense, the High Court should not have granted bail.
Respondent’s Arguments (Mahesh):
- The High Court acted within the parameters of granting bail.
- The accused cannot tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or evade trial.
- The accused has been granted police protection, and the charge sheet has been filed.
- All witnesses are government employees, and the documentary evidence is in court custody, eliminating the possibility of tampering.
- Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.
- The accused has been falsely implicated.
- The accused did not apply for or obtain the certified copy of the order dated 23.12.2002.
- The accused did not use the fabricated order in the case against him under the Gangsters Act.
- The accused did not abscond for 18 years as alleged.
- The appellant has no locus standi to challenge the bail, as he is neither the complainant nor the affected party.
- The appellant has a personal motive to keep the accused behind bars due to a separate FIR against the appellant and his father.
- The present petition is politically motivated.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (State) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seriousness of Offence | ✓ High Court ignored the gravity of forging court records. ✓ Interpolation in court records is a serious offense. |
✓ Supported the appellant’s claim on the seriousness of the offense. ✓ Accused is a history-sheeter. |
✓ High Court acted within parameters of granting bail. ✓ Allegations are not prima facie established. |
| Beneficiary of Forgery | ✓ Accused benefited from forged order in Gangsters Act case. ✓ Accused cannot claim ignorance even if brother did the forgery. |
✓ Accused got himself acquitted in Gangsters Act case using forged order. | ✓ Accused did not obtain or use the forged order. ✓ If the order was obtained by his brother, he cannot be held liable. |
| Reasons for Bail | ✓ High Court gave no adequate reasons for granting bail. ✓ High Court did not consider the maximum punishment. |
✓ Supported the appellant’s claim that the High Court did not give adequate reasons. | ✓ Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. ✓ Accused has been falsely implicated. |
| Locus Standi | ✓ Appellant was the original informant who brought the forgery to light. | ✓ Appellant has no locus standi as he is not the complainant and is motivated by personal reasons. | |
| Tampering of Evidence | ✓ No chance of tampering as all evidence is in court custody. |
There was no innovativeness in the arguments, as the arguments were based on facts and legal provisions.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this judgment. However, the core issue addressed was:
- Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused, considering the seriousness of the allegations of forging court records and the accused’s benefit from such forgery.
The sub-issue was whether the High Court considered the seriousness of the offence while granting bail.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused, considering the seriousness of the allegations of forging court records and the accused’s benefit from such forgery. | No. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in granting bail. | The High Court did not consider the seriousness of the offense, the gravity of forging court records, and the fact that the accused benefited from the forged order. The Supreme Court emphasized that forging court records is a grave offense that undermines the administration of justice. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| P. Chidambaram vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2020) 13 SCC 337 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Respondent relied on this case to argue that bail should be granted. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts and circumstances were different and that the High Court should have considered the seriousness of the offense. |
| Sharad T. Kabra vs. Union of India, (2018) 14 SCC 493 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Respondent relied on this case to argue that bail should be granted. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts and circumstances were different and that the High Court should have considered the seriousness of the offense. |
| Seema Singh vs. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 10 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Respondent relied on this case to argue that bail should be granted. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts and circumstances were different and that the High Court should have considered the seriousness of the offense. |
| Manish Solanki vs. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 4 SCC 340 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Respondent relied on this case to argue that bail should be granted. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts and circumstances were different and that the High Court should have considered the seriousness of the offense. |
| Amanullah vs. State of Bihar, (2016) 6 SCC 699 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Respondent relied on this case to argue that the present application should not be entertained as the appellant has no locus standi. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the appellant was the original informant and that the locus standi is not important in cases of tampering of court records. |
| Section 420, Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Indian Legislature | Considered | The Court considered this section in the context of the charges against the accused. |
| Section 467, Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Indian Legislature | Considered | The Court considered this section in the context of the charges against the accused and noted that the maximum punishment for the offence under this section is 10 years and fine/imprisonment for life. |
| Section 468, Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Indian Legislature | Considered | The Court considered this section in the context of the charges against the accused. |
| Section 471, Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Indian Legislature | Considered | The Court considered this section in the context of the charges against the accused and noted that the maximum punishment for the offence under this section is similar to Section 467 IPC. |
| Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Indian Legislature | Considered | The Court considered this section in the context of the charges against the accused. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to Respondent No. 2.
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| High Court did not consider the seriousness of the offense. | The Court agreed with this submission and held that the High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the allegations of forgery and manipulation of court records. |
| Accused is the beneficiary of the forged court order. | The Court agreed with this submission and held that the accused benefited from the forged court order, which was used to secure his acquittal in the Gangsters Act case. |
| High Court did not provide adequate reasons for granting bail. | The Court agreed with this submission and held that the High Court did not provide sufficient reasons for granting bail, only citing the case being triable by a Magistrate and the period of imprisonment served. |
| Appellant has no locus standi. | The Court disagreed with this submission and held that the appellant was the original informant and had the locus to challenge the bail. |
| No chance of tampering as all evidence is in court custody. | The Court disagreed with this submission and held that the allegations against the accused are of tampering with the court record which was already in the custody of the court. |
The following authorities were viewed by the Court as follows:
- P. Chidambaram vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2020) 13 SCC 337*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts and circumstances were different and that the High Court should have considered the seriousness of the offense.
- Sharad T. Kabra vs. Union of India, (2018) 14 SCC 493*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts and circumstances were different and that the High Court should have considered the seriousness of the offense.
- Seema Singh vs. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 10*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts and circumstances were different and that the High Court should have considered the seriousness of the offense.
- Manish Solanki vs. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 4 SCC 340*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts and circumstances were different and that the High Court should have considered the seriousness of the offense.
- Amanullah vs. State of Bihar, (2016) 6 SCC 699*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the appellant was the original informant and that the locus standi is not important in cases of tampering of court records.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Seriousness of the Offense: The Court emphasized that forging and manipulating court records is an extremely serious offense that undermines the administration of justice.
- Benefit to the Accused: The fact that the accused benefited from the forged court order by securing an acquittal in another case was a significant factor.
- Lack of Reasoning by the High Court: The High Court’s failure to provide adequate reasons for granting bail, especially considering the seriousness of the charges, was a major concern for the Supreme Court.
- Maximum Punishment: The Court noted that the offences under Section 467 read with Section 471 of the IPC carry a maximum punishment of 10 years and fine/imprisonment for life, which the High Court failed to consider.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Seriousness of the Offense | 40% |
| Benefit to the Accused | 30% |
| Lack of Reasoning by the High Court | 20% |
| Maximum Punishment | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal considerations, with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the case being triable by a Magistrate and the period of incarceration were sufficient grounds for granting bail. The Court emphasized that the gravity of the offense and its implications for the administration of justice should have been given paramount consideration.
The Court also rejected the argument that the accused was not directly involved in the forgery, stating that as the beneficiary of the forged order, he could not claim ignorance.
The Supreme Court stated, “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.”
The Court further noted, “Merely because the charge-sheet is filed is no ground to release the accused on bail.”
The Court also stated, “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.”
There were no minority opinions in this judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Forging or manipulating court records is a grave offense that will be viewed with utmost seriousness by the courts.
- An accused who benefits from a forged court order cannot claim ignorance, even if they were not directly involved in the forgery.
- High Courts must consider the seriousness of the offense and the potential implications for the administration of justice when granting bail, especially in cases involving forgery of court records.
- The mere filing of a charge sheet is not a sufficient ground for granting bail.
- The maximum punishment for the offences under Section 467 read with Section 471 of the IPC should be considered while granting bail.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed Respondent No. 2 to surrender forthwith as a consequence of the cancellation of bail. The Court clarified that any observations made in the order were confined to the grant of bail and that the trial should proceed in accordance with the law.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court should not grant bail in cases where the accused is charged with forging court records and has benefitted from such forgery, without considering the seriousness of the offense and the implications for the administration of justice. This judgment reinforces the principle that tampering with court records is a grave offense that warrants strict action.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Naveen Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. underscores the judiciary’s firm stance against any form of tampering with court records. By canceling the bail granted by the High Court, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message that such offenses will not be taken lightly and that the integrity of the judicial system must be protected at all costs. The judgment also serves as a reminder to High Courts to exercise caution and diligence when granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of forgery and manipulation of court documents.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Bail, Forgery, Court Records, Indian Penal Code, Section 420, Indian Penal Code, Section 467, Indian Penal Code, Section 468, Indian Penal Code, Section 471, Indian Penal Code, Section 120-B
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 467, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 468, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 471, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Naveen Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case?
A: The main issue was whether the High Court was correct in granting bail to an accused charged with forging court records, especially when the accused had benefited from the forged documents.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court canceled the bail granted by the High Court, emphasizing the seriousness of forging court records and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court consider forging court records so serious?
A: The Supreme Court stated that manipulating court records undermines the administration of justice and is a far more serious offense than forging other documents.
Q: What are the implications of this judgment for individuals accused of similar offenses?
A: This judgment implies that individuals accused of forging court records will face strict legal scrutiny, and bail will not be easily granted, especially if they have benefited from the forgery.
Q: What should High Courts consider when granting bail in cases involving forgery of court records?
A: High Courts must consider the seriousness of the offense, the potential implications for the administration of justice, and the maximum punishment prescribed for the offenses.
Q: Can an accused claim ignorance if they benefited from a forged court order but were not directly involved in the forgery?
A: No, the Supreme Court held that an accused who benefits from a forged court order cannot claim ignorance, even if they were not directly involved in the forgery.