Uttarakhand High Court
Mohan Kumar Saxena vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 July, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 UTR 243
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.513 of 2020
Mohan Kumar Saxena ....Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
This 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 the I.P.C.
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 2 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. Mahavir Singh Tyagi, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Soniya Chawla, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, the learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing.
4. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, the learned Senior Advocate submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated; the applicant is not named in the FIR; FIR has been lodged after a delay of 36 days and no sufficient explanation has been given by the respondent; no e-stamp papers were recovered from the possession or on the pointing out of the applicant; the applicant has not sold the alleged forged e-stamp papers to any of the purchasers who presented the sale deed for its registration before the Registrar Office; the applicant is the son-in-law of the original stamp vendor, namely, Rajesh Kumar and was working as an assistant with him; the In-charge Sub-Registrar, Sitarganj issued a notice to Rajesh Kumar with regard to forgery committed through forged e-stamp papers; prior issuing the said notice, Mr. Rajesh Kumar lodged a written report to the In-charge of Bazar Chauki, Khatima on 20.11.2019 alleging there in that on 20.11.2019 when he was coming to his place of sitting in Khatima Tehsil premises situated in front of the court, his bag fell down somewhere in which some important documents, Aadhar card, Pan card and E- stationery papers from Serial Nos. U.P.0001832047 to U.P.0001832052 were also missed; the In-charge Sub-Registrar, Sitarganj also issued a notice to Meera Biswas, who informed the Sub-registrar that she purchased the e-stamp from one Gappu 3 Bhatanagar; The statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are contradictory. the applicant has no concern with the alleged allegations; he is neither a beneficiary or purchaser nor a witness of the sale deed; no offence under Sections 255 and 258 of the I.P.C. are made out against him; he is in custody since 20.01.2020.
5. The learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submits that the applicant was involved in the offences and the said offences are grievous in nature, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. Section 439 of the Code confers very wide powers regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court is guided by the same considerations as other court. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration.
7. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail, are
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence, (ii) nature and gravity of charge, (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail, (v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused, (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated, (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
8. In determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. While dealing with an application for bail, there is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie considering why 4 bail is being granted particularly where an accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order dehors reasons suffers from non application of mind as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and others, (2002)3 SCC 598.
9. A ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi and another, 2018(1) CCSC 117 is that in serious crimes, the mere fact that the accused is in custody for more than one year, may not be a relevant consideration to release the accused on bail.
10. During the course of the investigation, the involvement of the present applicant surfaced to this matter. One Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the father-in-law of the present applicant, was the valid license holder of vendor and the present applicant was also registered as Assistant vendor. During investigation, evidences are produced that the present applicant was working as assistant with Rajesh Kumar and entire work of stamp vending of Rajesh Kumar was looked after by the present applicant and the present applicant generated the forged e- stamp papers. The original E-stationery issued by the E-Stamp Stock Holding Office, Haldwani and those e-stationery were numbered from the E-Stamp Stock Holding office, Haldwani and issued in the name of Rajesh Kumar, license holder, the applicant misused the numbered stationery issued by the said office. The report dated 23.12.2019 of Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd., Branch Haldwani clearly stated that e-stamp certificates produced before it for verification were not original e-stamp certificate issued by Stock Holding and was fake. The Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd., India's largest custodian and depository participant, is established as a Public Limited Company. The Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. is known for its online trading portal with investors and traders. It is also responsible for e-stamping system. The evidences are produced 5 during the investigation that the applicant sold the forged e-stamp with hatching conspiracy with the co-accused. The alleged e-stamp generated in original e-stamp stationery and scanned and subsequently registry had been done in respect to two plots in the Registry Office in Sitarganj. During the course of the investigation, on the pointing out of the applicant, the e-stamp generating operators, laptop and printer were recovered on 18.01.2020.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no force in the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate. From the perusal of the evidences, collected during the investigation, it prima facie appears that the present applicant counterfeited the e- stamps issued by Government for the purpose of revenue and thereafter sold these stamps. Therefore, it prima facie appears that the applicant was involved in this offence. No reason is found to implicate him. Therefore, there is no good reason to release the applicant at this stage. The bail application is liable to be rejected. The bail application is rejected accordingly.
12. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application are limited to the decision, in the light of the facts, provided by the parties at this stage, as to whether the bail application should be allowed or not and the said observations shall not effect the trial of the case.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 24.07.2020 JKJ/Neha