NAVEEN SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. on 15 March 2021

[2021] 7 S.C.R. 52

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2021] 7 S.C.R. 52

[2021] 7 S.C.R.

NAVEEN SINGH

A

v.

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

(Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2021)

BMARCH 15, 2021

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDM. R. SHAH, JJ.]

Bail – Forgery / manipulation of court records – Respondentno.2 was beneficiary of the same – FIR u/ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-BCIPC – Sessions Judge dismissed bail application of respondent no.2 –High Court, however, released him on bail – If justified – Held: HighCourt released respondent no.2 on bail in a routine and casual mannerwithout adverting to the seriousness of the offence and the gravity ofthe matter relating to forgery and /or manipulation of the court order –DIt did not at all consider that respondent no.2 was charged for offencesu/ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and that the maximum punishmentfor offence u/s. 467 IPC is 10 years and fine / imprisonment for life andeven for offence u/s. 471 IPC the punishment is similar – If the courtrecord is manipulated and/or forged, it will hamper the administrationof justice – Forging/ manipulating the court record and taking benefitEof the same stands on altogether a different footing than forging/manipulating other documents between two individuals – Consideringthe very serious allegations of forging/manipulating court order andrespondent No.2 having taken advantage of the same, the High Courtwas not justified in releasing him on bail – Merely because the charge-Fsheet was filed is no ground to release respondent no.2 on bail –Impugned judgment of High Court releasing respondent No.2 on bailaccordingly unsustainable – IPC – ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B –Administration of Justice.

Allowing the appeal, the CourtG

HELD: 1. Respondent No. 2 – accused is facing the trialfor the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.The FIR has been lodged by the record keeper of the court onthe order passed by the District and Sessions Judge. Theallegations are very serious of tampering and/or manipulating the H

court order and Respondent No. 2 has taken the benefit of suchforged/manipulated court order in another case. After theinvestigation is concluded, the charge-sheet has been filed againstRespondent No. 2 – accused and even the charges are alsoreported to be framed. Thus, a prima facie case is found againstthe accused for the aforesaid offences. [Para 8.1][61-E, F-H]

2. The High Court released accused on bail in a routineand casual manner and without adverting to the seriousness ofthe offence and the gravity of the matter relating to forgery and/or manipulating the court order. From the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court it appears that it has onlyobserved that since the innocence and complicity of the accusedcan 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 triableby the Magistrate and the charge sheet having been filed and theaccused is languishing in jail since 22.11.2018, is entitled to bereleased on bail. However, the High Court has not at allconsidered that the accused is charged for the offences underSection 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and the maximumpunishment for offence under Section 467 IPC is 10 years andfine/imprisonment for life and even for the offence under Section471 IPC there is similar punishment. Apart from that, forgingand/or manipulating the court record and getting benefit of suchforged/manipulated court record is a very serious offence. If thecourt record is manipulated and/or forged, it will hamper theadministration of justice. Forging/manipulating the court recordand taking the benefit of the same stands on altogether a differentfooting than forging/manipulating other documents between twoindividuals. Therefore, the High Court ought to have been morecautious/serious in granting the bail to a person who is alleged tohave forged/manipulated the court record and taken the benefitof such manipulated and forged court record more particularlywhen he has been charged-sheeted having found prima facie caseand 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 AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athereafter it will not be open for respondent no.2 to contend thatit might have been done by his brother who was doing Pairokaron his behalf. [Para 8.3][63-B]

4. Suffice it is to say that in the facts and circumstances ofthe case and looking to the very serious allegations of forging/Bmanipulating court order and having taken advantage of the same,the High Court is not justified in releasing Respondent No. 2 onbail. Merely because the charge-sheet is filed is no ground to releasethe accused on bail. The submission on behalf of the accused wasthat as the record is now in the court’s custody there is no chance oftampering, but the allegation against the respondent accused are ofCtampering/forging/manipulating the court record which was in thecustody of the court. Seriousness of the offence is one of the relevantconsiderations while considering the grant of bail, which has notbeen considered at all by the High Court while releasing RespondentNo. 2 – accused on bail. [Para 8.3][63-C-E]

D5. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court releasing Respondent No. 2 –accused on bail is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and setaside and is accordingly set aside. [Para 9][64-A]

P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of InvestigationE(2020) 13 SCC 337; Sharad T. Kabra v. Union of India(2018) 14 SCC 493; Seema Singh v. CBI & Anr. (2018)16 SCC 10 : [2018] 3 SCR 355; Manish Solanki @Bansi v. The State of Rajasthan (2019) 4 SCC 340; andAmanullah & Anr v. State of Bihar & Ors (2016) 6 SCCF699: [2016] 2 SCR 1027 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

H

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 320 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2020 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in BailApplication No. 1398 of 2020.

Kanhaiya Singhal, Prasanna, Chetan Bhardwaj, Advs. for theAppellant.

V.K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., Adarsh Upadhyay, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar,Shakti Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 22.05.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad, Lucknow Bench in Bail Application Case No.1398 of 2020by which the High Court has released Respondent No.2 herein - accusedon 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 originalinformant has preferred the present appeal.

3. That the Record Keeper of the Civil Court, Unnao on the orderof the District Judge, Unnao has lodged an FIR against RespondentNo.2 herein for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-BIPC. It is required to be noted that before the said FIR was lodged, awrit petition was filed by the appellant herein before the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench being Misc. Bench No.37206of 2018 for issuance of writ of mandamus to take action on the complaintmade by him against Respondent No.2 herein for committing forgery inCourt record. At that time, it was alleged that there was a fabrication inthe 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 CaseNo.152/2000, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao. The court recordwas tampered with and instead of ‘Mahesh’, ‘Ramesh’ had been written.Considering the gravity of the matter, the High Court called for -thecomments of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court,Unnao. It appears that earlier in the order dated 14.11.2018 the veryLearned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Unnao madecertain observations with respect to the fabrication in the court record.Therefore, the High Court thought it fit to call his comments as to incontext of which document the observations were made in order dated14.11.2018. It appears that thereafter the Learned Additional Sessions A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AJudge sent his comments/enquiry report dated 09.01.2019 indicating thatthe judicial record pertaining to Sessions Trial No.89-A/01, State vs.Mahesh, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC, Crime Case No.152 of2000, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao, was tampered with. TheHigh Court directed District and Sessions Judge, Unnao to take noticeof the record dated 09.01.2019 and ensure that the needful is done.BThereafter on the order of the Learned District and Sessions Judge,Unnao, the Record keeper has lodged the aforesaid FIR againstRespondent No.2 herein – Mahesh for the offences stated hereinabove.

As per the averments and allegations made in the FIR, a commonorder was passed on 23.12.2002 by the Learned Additional SessionsCJudge, Unnao in Sessions Case No.583/2000 State Vs. Pappu Singh underSection 307/504/506 IPC PS Makhi, District Unnao Case No.152/2000,Sessions Case Crime No.153/2000 and Session Case No.89/2001 StateVs. Guddu Singh under Sections 307/504/506 IPC Crime No.152/2000that the certified copy of the same was obtained by the appellant – Shri

DNaveen Singh on 04.05.2012 in which name of any of the accused wasnot extended. A certified copy of the decision of the said sessions casedated 23.12.2002 was obtained by the appellant herein in which thename of Respondent No.2 – Mahesh was found to be mentioned in theorder. Though the judgment was not passed in the above sessions caseagainst Mahesh. A certified copy of the said decision/order was obtainedEon 04.05.2012. In the first page of the decision; case of Mahesh wasseparated as he absconded. The certified copy of the said order dated23.12.2002 was received by the appellant on 17.12.2015, then in itsorder on page 10, the name of the accused – Mahesh was added with thepen. Therefore, it was alleged that first the name has been inscribed andFthe whitener has been applied, which seems to be a fraud. Second, thename of the accused –Ramesh has been added/inserted in page no.1,while there was no accused by name of Ramesh. That a Special CaseNo.11/12 Crime No.132/2002 under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangstersand Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as‘the Gangsters Act’, against Mahesh was pending and under considerationGin Special Court Judge/Gangster Act/Additional Sessions Judge CourtNo.5, Unnao, in which a certified copy of the decision and the orderdated 23.12.2002 on behalf of Mahesh Singh, Paper No.B/346 waspresented, showing that Shri Mahesh Singh was acquitted in the saidcase. Having found that Mahesh Singh was acquitted in all the casesHshown in the Gangsters Act including the Special Case No.583/2000, the Learned Special Court (Gangsters Act) acquitted the said Mahesh Singh.The said Mahesh Singh is the beneficiary of the interpolation/manipulation/forgery of the court record therefore, it was alleged that RespondentNo.2 herein – original accused has committed the offences under Sections420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.

3.1. That thereafter and after his arrest, Respondent No.2 herein– Mahesh – accused filed an application for regular bail before the LearnedSessions Court. That the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao by adetailed order dated 07.11.2019 dismissed the said bail applicationobserving that the allegations against the accused are very serious offorging the court’s records and that the accused is the beneficiary of thesaid forgery and therefore this is not a fit case to release him on bail.That thereafter Respondent No.2 herein - accused approached the HighCourt by way of Criminal Misc. Case No.1398/2020 for regular bail.Before the High Court, it was also contended on behalf of the accusedthat there is a possibility that the manipulation in the certified copy of thejudgment issued by the Court might have been committed by his Pairokarnamed Pappu Singh, his brother who applied and obtained the copy. Itwas his case that he was unknown of any such act as he was not physicallyinvolved. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court hasreleased Respondent No.2 – accused on bail by observing in one para asunder:

“Since the innocence and complicity of the accused can be decidedonly after taking evidence with regard thereto. Therefore, withoutcommenting anything on merit of the case, as to the complicity,involvement and severances of the offences, the case being triableby Magistrate and the chargesheet having been filed and theaccused is languishing in jail since 22.11.2018, I find force in thesubmissions made by of learned counsel for the bail-applicant forgrant of bail.”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court releasing Respondent No.2 – accusedon bail, the original informant has preferred the present appeal. State hassupported the present appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant hasvehemently submitted that while releasing Respondent No.2 - accusedon bail, the High Court has not at all considered the seriousness of thecharge against the accused and the gravity of the matter.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A5.1. It is submitted that the High Court ought to have appreciatedthat this is a case of manipulation and forgery of the court record and asper the enquiry report of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, therewas interpolation in the court record. It is submitted that interpolationand manipulation of the court record is a very serious offence. It issubmitted that earlier High Court took note of the enquiry report submittedBby the Additional Sessions Judge and thereafter directed the District andSessions Judge to take further steps and thereafter on the order passedby Learned District and Sessions Judge, the FIR was lodged.

5.2. It is submitted that as such Respondent No.2 – accused is thebeneficiary of such manipulation/forgery. It is submitted that as suchCmanipulated and forged court order was produced before the court inanother case under the Gangsters Act and in the case under the GangstersAct it was submitted on the basis of the forged order that he has beenacquitted and considering that as one of the ground the Special Court,Gangsters Act acquitted the Respondent No.2 herein accused. It isDsubmitted that therefore Respondent No.2 – accused as such got thebenefit of such forged, manipulated court order. It is submitted that evenaccording to the respondent – accused the manipulation might be by hisbrother Pappu Singh who was Pairokar on behalf of the appellant. It issubmitted that as such in the proceedings under the Gangsters Act, acommon defence was filed on behalf of Pappu Singh as well as theEaccused Mahesh. It is submitted that therefore, even if it is assumed forthe time being that the same might have been done by Pappu Singh – hisbrother, in that case also, Mahesh is the beneficiary of such forged andmanipulated court record and, in fact, he got the benefit of such forgedand manipulated court record, the accused must be aware and he cannotFplead the ignorance.

5.3. It is submitted that as such respondent – Mahesh Singhabsconded for 18 years in Crime Case No.152/2000 and Sessions CaseNo.583/2000 and, in fact, his trial was separated.

5.4. It is further submitted that as such no reasons whatsoeverGhave been given by the High Court while releasing Respondent No.2 –accused on bail. It is submitted that when Respondent No.2 – accused isfacing the very serious allegations of forgery and manipulation of thecourt record and looking to the gravity of the matter, the High Courtought to have given some reasons while releasing him on bail, though nodetailed discussion on merits.H

5.5. It is submitted that while releasing Respondent No.2 –accused on bail, the High Court only stated that the case is triable by theMagistrate Court and that he has undergone 1 year and 6 monthsimprisonment. It is submitted that however the High Court has notconsidered that the maximum punishment is 10 years and evenimprisonment for life as per Section 467 read with Section 471 IPC.

Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the presentappeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court releasing Respondent No.2 - accused on bail.

6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supportedthe present appeal. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of RespondentNo.1 - State of U.P. It is submitted that Mahesh Singh is a history-sheeter and many cases of murder, attempt to murder, Gangsters Act,etc. are pending against him. It is submitted that on investigation it isfound that, in fact, the Respondent No.2 – accused has got the benefitof the forged and manipulated court order and got himself acquitted inthe case under the Gangsters Act. It is submitted that therefore lookingto the seriousness of the offence as alleged against Respondent No.2 –accused and considering the gravity of the matter, the High Court oughtnot to have released Respondent No.2 – accused on bail.

7. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf ofRespondent No.2 while opposing the present appeal and supporting theimpugned judgment and order of the High Court releasing RespondentNo.2 on bail has vehemently submitted that in the facts andcircumstances of the case the High Court has not committed any errorin releasing the accused on bail. It is submitted by Learned Counsel thatby releasing the accused on bail, the High Court has acted within thewell known parameters of grant of bail.

It is submitted that this Court in catena of cases has observed thatwhile dealing with the issue of grant of bail, the Court should examine asto whether:

(i) accused can tamper with the evidence.

(ii) influence witness

(iii) evade trial/investigation.

AB

CD

EF

G

H

A7.1. It is submitted that in the present case Respondent No.2 hasbeen granted police protection pursuant to the order passed by this Court.It is submitted that therefore there are no chances to evade trial and/orto influence the witnesses. It is submitted that even the charge-sheethas been filed now and the charges have been framed in 2019. It issubmitted that in the present matter, all the six witnesses are theBGovernment witnesses and most of them are court’s staff and therefore,there are no chances for the respondent to influence them. It is submittedsimilarly that all the documentary evidence in the present case are alsoin the custody of the Court and therefore no chance of the accused totamper with the same. In support, she has relied upon the decision ofCthis Court in case of P.Chidambaram vs. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, (2020) 13 SCC 337. It is further submitted that as percatena of decision of this Court, bail is the rule and jail is the exception.It is submitted that, in fact Respondent No.2 has been framed and falselyimplicated. It is further submitted that in catena of cases this Court, inthe cases involving Sections 468, 471 IPC, has granted bail to the accusedDwhile considering the period of incarceration. Reliance is placed onSharad T. Kabra vs. Union of India, (2018) 14 SCC 493; SeemaSingh vs. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 10; Manish Solanki vs. State ofRajasthan, (2019) 4 SCC 340. It is further submitted that even it cannotbe said that the allegations made in the FIR are prima facie established.EIt is submitted that neither in the FIR nor in the charge-sheet it has beenmentioned that Mahesh Singh and/or by any of his acquaintances hasapplied for certified copy of order dated 23.12.2002. It is submitted thatif the said order has not been obtained by Mahesh Singh or by any of hisacquaintances, then the issue of using it in S.T. No.11 of 2012 does notarise.F

7.2. Number of other submissions have been made by the LearnedCounsel appearing for Respondent No.2 to the effect that RespondentNo.2 - accused Mahesh has not used the order alleged to have beenfabricated in the case against him under the Gangsters Act.

G

7.3. It is further submitted that even it is also not true thatRespondent No.2 – accused has absconded for last 18 years as alleged.

7.4. It is further submitted by Learned Counsel appearing on behalfof the accused that now the appellant and the State are sharing hand ingloves against the accused.H

7.5. It is submitted that in any case the appellant has no locus toassail the grant of bail sought by Respondent No.2. It is submitted thathe is neither the complainant nor the affected person from the allegedoffence in Case Crime No.433 of 2019. It is submitted that on the contrary,he has his personal motive in keeping the accused behind the bar, as theappellant and his father are accused in FIR No.305 of 2019 with respectto killing the appellant’s wife. Relying upon the decision of this Court inthe case of Amanullah vs. State of Bihar, (2016) 6 SCC 699, it issubmitted that the present application at the instance of the appellantwho is a third person and who is not connected with the matter underconsideration and is having a personal grievance against the accused maynot be entertained.

7.6. It is submitted that even the present petition is being politicallymotivated and therefore it is requested not to entertain the present appealat the instance of the appellant.

8. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respectiveparties at length and perused the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court, whereby Respondent No.2 - accused is released onbail.

8.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Respondent No.2- accused is facing the trial for the offences under Sections 420, 467,468, 471, 120-B IPC. It is also required to be noted that the FIR hasbeen lodged by the record keeper of the court on the order passed by theDistrict and Sessions Judge, Unnao. After the enquiry report submittedby the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Unnao in which itwas stated that the Court record has been manipulated and forged, theHigh Court directed the Learned District and Sessions Judge to look intothe report and take further action and thereafter the FIR has been lodgedagainst the respondent – accused for the aforesaid offences. If weconsider the allegations, in that case, the allegations are very serious oftampering and/or manipulating the court record and Respondent no.2has taken the benefit of such forged/manipulated court order in anothercase. It is also required to be noted that now after the investigation isconcluded, the charge-sheet has been filed against the Respondent –accused and even the charges have also reported to be framed. Thus, aprima facie case is found against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

8.2. If we consider the impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court, it appears that High Court has not adverted itself to the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aseriousness of the case and the offences alleged against Respondentno.2 – accused and the gravity of the matter. From the impugned order,it appears that the High Court has released Respondent No.2 – accusedon bail in a routine and casual manner and without adverting to theseriousness of the offence and the gravity of the matter relating to forgeryand/or manipulating the court order. From the impugned judgment andBorder passed by the High Court, it appears that High Court has onlyobserved that since the innocence and complicity of the accused can bedecided only after taking evidence with regard thereto, without commentinganything on merit as to the complicity, involvement and severeness ofthe offences, the case being triable by the Magistrate and the chargeCsheet having been filed and the accused is languishing in jail since22.11.2018, is entitled to be released on bail.

However, the High Court has not at all considered that the accusedis charged for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-BIPC and the maximum punishment for offence under Section 467 IPC isD10 years and fine/imprisonment for life and even for the offence underSection 471 IPC the similar punishment. Apart from that forging and/ormanipulating the court record and getting benefit of such forged/manipulated court record is a very serious offence. If the Court record ismanipulated and/or forged, it will hamper the administration of justice.Forging/manipulating the Court record and taking the benefit of the sameEstands on altogether a different footing than forging/manipulating otherdocuments between two individuals. Therefore, the High Court ought tohave been more cautious/serious in granting the bail to a person who isalleged to have forged/manipulated the court record and taken the benefitof such manipulated and forged court record more particularly when he Fhas been charge-sheeted having found prima facie case and the chargehas been framed.

8.3. Now, so far as the submissions on behalf of the accused thathe has not obtained the certified copy of the judgment and order of theLearned Sessions Court dated 23.12.2002 in which there are allegationsGof forging and manipulation and he has not produced the same in thecase against him under the Gangsters Act is concerned. From the orderpassed by Learned Special Court Gangsters Act, it appears that thejudgment and order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge dated23.12.2002 was produced in which Respondent No.2 – accused - Maheshwas shown as acquitted. On the basis of the same, the Learned SpecialH

Court acquitted Respondent No.2 -accused. Therefore, in fact, he is thebeneficiary of the said forged/manipulated court order. The Special Courthas taken note of the order. It is the case on behalf of the accused thatit might have been produced by his brother – Pappu Singh who wasdoing Pairokar on his behalf. The aforesaid is neither here nor there.Once he is the beneficiary of such forged/manipulated court order andhaving taken advantage of such order thereafter it will not be open forthe respondent-accused to contend that it might have been done by hisbrother Pappu Singh who was doing Pairokar on his behalf.

At this stage, it is required to be noted that Pappu Singh has diedsubsequently. We do not express anything further on merits and go intodetail as the trial is yet to take place and any further observation onmerits may affect the case of the accused. Suffice it to say that in thefacts and circumstances of the case and looking to the very seriousallegations of forging/manipulating court order and having taken advantageof the same, the High Court is not justified in releasing Respondent No.2on bail. Merely because the charge-sheet is filed is no ground to releasethe accused on bail. The submission on behalf of the accused that as therecord is now in the court’s custody there is no chance of tampering isconcerned, the allegation against the respondent accused are of tampering/forging/manipulating the court record which was in the custody of thecourt. Seriousness of the offence is one of the relevant considerationswhile considering the grant of bail, which has not been considered at allby the High Court while releasing Respondent No.2 - accused on bail.

8.4. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent –accused that the appellant has no locus to file the present application forcancellation of the bail is concerned, it is required to be noted that in fact,it was the appellant who approached the High Court alleging tamperingof court record by the Respondent No.2 - accused and thereafter, theHigh Court directed the Learned Additional Sessions Judge to submit hiscomments and thereafter the Learned Additional Sessions Judge submittedits enquiry report and thereafter, the FIR has been lodged. Therefore, itcannot be said that the appellant has no locus to file the present applicationfor cancellation of the bail. Even otherwise in a case like this, where theallegations are of tampering with the court order and for whatever reasonthe State has not filed the bail application the locus is not that muchimportant and it is insignificant.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court releasing Respondent No.2 - accusedon bail is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and isaccordingly set aside.

Now Respondent No.2 - accused to surrender forthwith as aBconsequence of cancellation of the bail granted by the High Court, if notsurrendered. However, it is made clear that any observations made bythis Court in the present order be treated to have been confined to thegrant of bail and the trial to be proceeded further and conducted inaccordance with law and on its own merits.

CPresent appeal is allowed accordingly.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H