Back
2021 Supreme(UK) 266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Mohan Kumar Saxena - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Second Bail Application No. 121 of 2020
Decided On : 12-11-2021
Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate, S. S. Adhikari, Advocate
Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the purpose of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is to secure their attendance, not punishment.
Headnote:
Bail - Forgery - Regular bail granted to the applicant accused of forging e-stamp papers based on lack of evidence and absence of criminal history
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with an FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 255 and 258 of I.P.C. The first bail application was rejected, and the charge sheet has been filed after the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the submissions of both parties, granted bail to the applicant based on the absence of evidence linking the applicant to the forged e-stamp papers and the lack of criminal history. The court emphasized that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the purpose of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is to secure their attendance, not punishment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant deserved bail at this stage, considering the allegations of forgery and the evidence presented by both parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence linking the applicant to the forged e-stamp papers, the absence of criminal history, and the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail with specific conditions to attend the trial court regularly and not make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
JUDGMENT
Alok Kumar Verma, J. - This second bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.414 of 2019, registered with Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 255 and 258 of I.P.C. The First Bail Application No.513 of 2020 was rejected, after hearing of both the parties, on 24.07.2020.
2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that an FIR was registered on 26.12.2019 against one R.S. Rathore, e-stamp vendor, on the basis of a written report lodged by the informant Ambika Prasad Tripathi, In-charge Sub-Registrar, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. According to this matter, two sale deeds were received by the Registrar Office. One sale deed was presented by Smt. Meera Biswas and other sale deed was presented by Deepak Biswas in e-stamp papers bearing No.IN-UK32142932556487R dated 20.11.2019 and IN-UK32963024789661R dated 20.11.2019 respectively. It was found by the Registrar Office that both the aforesaid e-stamp papers were not verified in the Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd., Haldwani Branch. These stamp papers bore the e-stamp, stamp of vendor R.S. Rathore, Khatima, U.S. Nagar. In order to verify whether these aforementioned stamp papers had been issued by the Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd., Haldwani Branch, it was informed to the Registrar Office that the aforementioned e-stamp papers had not issued to any person by the name of R.S. Rathore and there was no such person as stamp vendor in the name of R.S. Rathore in their records. During the investigation, the name of the present applicant came into light and it was found that the said e-stamp papers were forged and fabricated. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.
3. Heard Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
4. Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR; he has been falsely implicated; after rejection of the First Bail Application No.513 of 2020, eight prosecution witnesses are examined before the trial court; Rajesh Kumar Bhatnagar, P.W.8 has not made any allegation against the applicant; Deepak Kumar Bishwas, P.W.2 stated that he does not know the present applicant and he had not purchased e-stamp in-question from the present applicant; during the course of the investigation, on the pointing of the applicant, his alleged laptop was recovered, however, no evidence has been found till date that the alleged e-stamp was generated from his alleged recovered laptop; the applicant is in custody since 20.01.2020; he has no criminal history; he is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar.
5. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, opposed the bail application. However, he fairly submitted that after rejection of the first bail application, eight prosecution witnesses are examined; the prosecution witness Deepak Kumar Bishwas, P.W.2 has stated that he had not purchased the impugned e-stamp from the applicant and the same had been purchased from one Gappu Bhatnagar @ Sudesh Bhatnagar; during the trial, Rajesh Kumar Bhatnagar, P.W.8 has not made any allegation against the present applicant; it is not clear at this stage whether the impugned e-stamp was generated from the laptop, recovered from the possession of the applicant and the applicant has no criminal history.
6. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.
7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for bo
