IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Grant of bail – Merely because charge-sheet is filed is no ground to release accused on bail. Seriousness of offence is one of relevant considerations while considering grant of bail.
(2) In a case where allegations are of tampering with court order and for whatever reason State has not filed bail application locus is not that much important and it is insignificant.

JUDGMENT :

M. R. SHAH, J.

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 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 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. 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, 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.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. 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 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 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