Ranchhodbhai @ Dagri Ambalal ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 5131 Guj

           R/CR.MA/1675/2021                                       ORDER




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1675 of 2021

=========================================
              RANCHHODBHAI @ DAGRI AMBALAL PATEL
                                  Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance:
MR YOGESH S.LAKHANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by MR MAULIN G
PANDYA(3999) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR J.M. PANCHAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR PARTH CONTRACTOR for
MR APURVA R KAPADIA(5012) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR L.B. DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                               Date : 15/04/2021

                                  ORAL ORDER

1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with FIR registered as C.R. No.I­11216024200717 of 2020 with KALOL CITY POLICE STATION, DISTRICT­GANDHINAGAR, for the offence punishable under Sections 119, 380 406, 409, 477, 384, 457, 114, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular

bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the application though filed prior to the filing of the charge­sheet, pending the investigation, the

charge­sheet is now filed. At request of the learned Advocate for the

applicant the application is treated to be an application for the regular bail

after filing of the charge­sheet.

R/CR.MA/1675/2021 ORDER

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that though the FIR is registered in the year 2020, the offence is committed even as per the FIR

way back in the year 2006 to 2011. The applicant is now aged 61 years and

therefore, the case of the applicant deserves consideration.

5. It is submitted that the now the charge­sheet is filed and the investigation pertains to documentary evidence considering the nature of offence for

which the charge­sheet is filed and the maximum sentence imposed, the

application deserves consideration.

6. It is submitted that root of the offence is the land transaction i.e. to say the property dispute and for which the applicant is already facing the previous offence.

7. It is submitted that the offence pertains to missing of record of the Court, the applicant after transaction in connection with the land in question had

nothing to do with the land and therefore, is not in any manner interested

in the land in question. Therefore, there was no reason for the applicant to

have any interest in managing to disappear the court records. It is

submitted that the applicant has cooperated during the course of

investigation and therefore, no purpose will be served any further detaining

the applicant.

8. It is submitted that the co­accused who were also in the land transaction of the land in question, have been enlarged on regular bail. Hence, on the

principle of parity, the case of the applicant deserves consideration.

9. It is submitted that even in the Civil proceedings, filed prior to the present FIR, the said suit has been rejected by the concerned Civil Court and having

failed therein, the present FIR has been filed as armed twisting method.

Even the scientific evidence with regards to the allegations of fake

signature in fabricating the documents, no role of the applicant is coming

out. Entire house which was searched, has not disclosed any incriminating

documents.

R/CR.MA/1675/2021 ORDER

10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent­State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the

nature and gravity of the offence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor

also submitted that the applicant is involved in the offence from the

beginning. He has entered land transaction later on the basis of fake and

fabricating documents for which also the M­case was registered and

pendency of which was not in interest of the applicant.

11. It is submitted that the applicant who managed to see that the entire record of the Court pertaining to criminal case disappears. The applicant has direct

motive for committing the offence.

12. It is submitted that the Court may take a very serious note of the present FIR, which is registered for missing of records as the co­accused was the

purchaser of the stamp paper on which the document was executed.

Alleged fake document­ Power of attorney was recovered during the

investigation of the previous offence and was part of the criminal case

record which has now gone missing.

13. It is submitted that the records of ten such cases were untraceable and one more offence in which case papers were missing, the applicant­

Ranchhodbhai @ Dagri is also an accused.

14. Learned Senior Advocate - Mr. J. M. Panchal appeared for the respondent, has submitted that the present offence is of the most serious nature as it

directly affects the administration of justice. It is submitted that the

applicant who had clear motive and was to be benefited by missing records

of the criminal case.

15. It is submitted that the offence came to light only with the intervention of this Court when this Court in Special Criminal Application No.8324 of 2018

passed series of orders to unearth to manner and method in which the

offence had taken place. But with the intervention of this Court, gross

miscarriage of justice would have taken place and for which the applicant

R/CR.MA/1675/2021 ORDER

was squarely responsible. The applicant had virtually made the trial Court

helpless as the original record of criminal case on the basis of which the

applicant was to be prosecuted, have gone missing. Preliminary inquiry

also revealed the involvement of the Court's Staff in this offence, itself is

very serious. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in case

of Naveen Singh v/s. State of The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

(Criminal Appeal No.320 of 2021 dated 15­03­2021).

16. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that the case against the applicant is

that applicant­Ranchhodbhai alias Dagri Ambalal Patel and accused­Kalaji Becharji Thakor (Chauhan), who died on 16/03/2015, prepared a false

power of attorney of the land bearing old survey No.374 (new survey

No.284), admeasuring 1­23­49, situated in the outskirt of village

Rancharda of taluka Kalol and owned by the complainant and the witness

No.11, 12 and 13 in favour of Kalaji Becharji Thakor. The stamp of Rs.100

for the power of attorney was purchased by accused No.1­ Ranchhodbhai

Patel and he falsely put his signature and thumb impression as a witness

and identifier of the complainant / witnesses in the power of attorney

executed on it. Though having knowledge that the power of attorney was

false, Kalaji Becharji Thakor sold this land to accused­Chandrakant

Ramanlal Patel, by executing sale deed on the basis of the power of

attorney and on learning about it, the complainant / witnesses filed a

complaint regarding it before Kalol Court. Following the order of the court,

M. Case No.15/2003 was registered at Kalol Taluka Police Station under

sections 465, 471, 468, 479, 114 of I.P.C. and its investigation was

conducted by the then Police Inspector of Kalol Taluka, who filed charge­

sheet after investigation and sent it to the court. The case was registered

vide Criminal Case No.1931/2004 in the court and the case was under

trial.

R/CR.MA/1675/2021 ORDER

17. Apart from this criminal case, the complainant filed a suit in the Kalol Court vide Spl. Civil Suit No.72/2003 (present suit No.246/2007) against

the accused persons to declare the false and fake power of attorney and the

deed executed on the basis of it null and void on 13/05/2003. Though the

court passed an order of status quo to keep the land in its original state on

17/08/2006, the accused­Chandrakant gifted the land to accused No.3 ­

Shwetaben Patel and she gifted the land to her brother Saumil Patel, the

accused No.3.

18. Thereafter, the accused Shwetaben and Saumil Patel sold the said land to co­accused­Jayrambhai Rabari and Accused Malaji Rabari and Kirtibhai Bharwad by Sale Deed No.02/2007 dated 02/01/2007. In order to try to

get the possession of the land in dispute forcefully, the accused persons

committed theft of original papers of C.C. No.1931/2004, FSL Opinion and

Muddamal lying in the custody of hon'ble court, at any point of time after

23/06/2011, by making pre­planned conspiracy, in collusion with

Mahendra Raval­a Court Employee, in the capacity of government servant

and thus committed breach of trust of the government for the personal

financial benefit and knowing or having knowledge that it would be in the

interest of the accused persons to destroy the copy of FSL Report,

submitted by witness no.16 ­ Lataben, containing the detail that the

signature of the then accused no.1 ­ Kalaji Becharji in the sale deed and

agreement was fake, which can declare all the sale transactions null and

void if brought on the court record. Moreover, after the theft or

disappearance of the said papers from the hon'ble court was disclosed,

pending the departmental inquiry regarding missing of other cases before

the hon'ble court of Kalol, other 10 cases were also found missing. Out of

them, appliant­Ranchhodbhai Patel was an accused in C.C. No.940/2006.

Moreover, Criminal Case No.5144/2009 and 5145/2009, pending against

the said accused in the Kalol court, were also required to be reconstructed

R/CR.MA/1675/2021 ORDER

as the same were found missing from the court. Thus, the accused persons,

by committing such acts intentionally, have committed serious kind of

offence as to damage trust of common public on the judiciary.

19. From the investigation case papers it reveals that on 11­01­2002, forged Power of Attorney - allegedly executed by the Original Owners in favour of

Kalaji Becharji Thakor. Witness is Racnhod Ambalal Patel (accused No.2).

On 04­02­2002, on the basis of the Forged POA, purported Sale Deed

executed by Kalaji Becharji (acting as POA of the Original Owners) in

favour of Chandrakant Ramanlal Patel (M E No.4863). On 03­08­2002,

Chandrakant Ramanlal Patel executes purported Sale Deed in favour of Shweta Prabhodchandra Patel (M E No.4871) for Rs.10,000/­.

20. On 18­10­2002, SPCS 264/2002 came to be filed by Chandrakant

Ramanlal Patel, inter alia, seeing to restrain the Original Owners from

entering the land. It is when the summons in the said case were issued to

the Original Owners that they realized that the Land had been sold and

that a forged POA had been created. On 08­04­2003, given that the Police

was not registering an FIR, the Original Owners were constrained to lodge

a complaint with the Magistrate being Criminal Inquiry No.15 of 2003, at

the Kalok Taluka Court. On 13­05­2003, SPCS 72/2003 (reunmbered as

SPCS 246/2007) came to be preferred by the Original Oweners against

Shweta Patel, Chandrakant Patel, Kalaji Becharji and Ranchod Ambalal

Patel @ Dagri. On 29­05­2003, Kalaji Becharji also lodged a Complaint

being Criminal Enquiry No.26/2003 before the Kalol Taluka Court, clearly

stating that the forged POA as well as the Sale Deed in favour of

Chandrakant Ramanlal Patel gad forged signatures of Kalaji Becharji

Thakor. This fact the Deponent has come to know around 15.12.2020, and

the Original record of the said Complaint is also missing. On 01.09.2003,

order passed by Hon'ble High Court in SCRA No.565 of 2003 directing the

Circle PI to conduct the investigation in relation to the Criminal Enquiry

R/CR.MA/1675/2021 ORDER

No.15/2003. On 27­05­2004, Report of H/W Expert of the FSL,

Gandhinagar (AB ­Case No.263/03) clearly stating that the signatures of

Kalaji Becharji in the forged POA and in the Sale Deed dated 03­08­2002

were not of Kalaji Becharji.

21. On 20­09­2004, Charge­sheet is filed. On 20­09­2004, Criminal Case

No.1931/2004 is registered with the Kalol Taluka Court in pursuance of the

Criminal Enquiry No.15/2003. Criminal Enquiry No.15/2003 continues to

remain pending in the record of the Kalol Taluka Court, for want of a

Report from the Police, despite the same being converted into Criminal

Complaint No.1931/2004. No summons or notice is issued in this regard. On 17­08­2006, Photographs evidencing that the Land was in possession of

the Original Owners were produced and exhibited in the SPCS. On 17­08­

2006, A Joint Undertaking was given by the Advocates for the Original

Owners as well as Shweta Prabodhchandra Patel and Chandrakant

Ramanlal Patel, to maintain 'status quo'. On 17­08­2006, on the basis of the

same, order uder Exhibit­5 came to be passed. To cicumvent the order of

'status quo', Shweta Prabhodhchandra Patel executes a Gift Deed in favour

of her brother Saumil Prabhodchandra Patel. On 26­08­2006, Title Notice

is published in Gujarat Samachar by Advocate N.R. Kavina, seeking title in

relation to the Land. On 29­08­2006, Original Owners respond to the Title

Notice and clearly state that the Land cannot be dealt with or transferred in

veiw of the pending SPCS as well as the order of 'status quo'.

22. On 02­01­2007, Saumil Prabhodchandra Patel through his POA Shweta Prabodhchandra Patel executes a Sale Deed in favour of Kirti Bharwad,

Jerambhai Rabari (co­accused) and Malji Rabari for Rs.7,00,000/­. Saumil

& others are joined as party Defendants in the SPCS. In August­ September,

2007, Original Owners are forcibly evicted and applicant with co­accused

illegally occupied the Land and continue to trespass over the same even

today. On 10­10­2008, Order passed under Exhibit­92 and 105 of the

R/CR.MA/1675/2021 ORDER

SPCS, wherein the Application of 'status quo' qua the Original Owners came

to be allowed and that of applicant with co­accused was rejected. On 23­

06­2011, Criminal Case No.1931/2004 last listed before Court of Learned

Judge, Shri P. M. Chauhan. Thereafter, it has not been listed and all the

record has gone missing. In the year 2017, having the need for the purpose

of the Special Civil Suit, inquiries were made for tracing the forged POA (in

original) as well as to obtain the Report of the FSL, if any, in relation to the

Thumb Impressions. After a lot of inquiries, it was revealed that Criminal

Case No.1931/2004 had been registered wherein the above­referred

documents, in original, had been produced along with the Charge­sheet. However, the Original Owners were informed that the entire record of the

Crimnal Case No.1931/2004 had gone missing. On 10­09­2018, SCRA

No.8324 of 2018 filed before the Hon'ble High Court. On 28­09­2018,

Hon'ble High Court calls for a Detailed Report on the issue from the

Learned Principal Judge, Kalol Taluka Court. On 19­03­2019, despite being

aware of the issue of the missing record, the very Learned Principal Judge,

Kalol dismisses the SPCS on the sole ground that the Original Owners had

failed to produce the forged POA (in original).

23. On 02­04­2019, Hon'ble High Court calls for the case papers from the Police and calls upon the Learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar to

inform in relation to any inquiry, if conducted in this regard. On 22­04­

2019, Hon'ble High Court directs that a copy of the Police Papers be made

available to the Advocates for the Original Owners. On 25­04­2019, Papers

are received by the Advocate for the Original Owners. Two copies of the

forged POA dated 11­01­2002 - one has four thumb impressions and the

other has three. FSL report of H/W Expert is also made available. On 09­

05­2019, Hon'ble High Court directs District Inquiry to be conducted by the

Learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar as well as investigation by

the SP, Gandhinagar. On 19­09­2019, Regular Civil Appeal No.80/2019

R/CR.MA/1675/2021 ORDER

preferred by the Original Owners. On 17­12­2019, FSL Report stating that

the thumb impressions in the original register of the Notary (H.C. Amin) do

not match with that of the Original Owners is received by the Police and

placed on the record of the SCRA. On 22­01­2020, Order passed in the RCA

No.80/2019, setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 19­03­2019,

allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and remanding the

matter back to the Learned Trial Court for consideration afreash.

24. On 19­02­2020, Summons have been issued afresh in SPCS No.246/2007. On 28­10­2020, Report submitted by the Learned Principal District Judge,

Gandhinagar after conduct of the District Inquiry which clearly implicates officials of Kalol Court, Ranchod Patel @Dagri as well as other

beneficiaries. On 26­11­2020, Hon'ble High Court calls for Action Taken

Report from the Learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar as well as

the SP, Gandhinagar. On 04­12­2020, FIR No.11216024200717 of 2020 is

lodged by the Kalol City Police Station for the offence punishable under

Sections 119, 380 406, 409, 477, 384, 457, 114, 120(B) of the Indian Penal

Code against (1) Ranchod Patel @Dagri, (2) Chandrakant Patel, (3)

Shweta Patel, (4) Saumil Patel, (5) Kirti Bharwad, (6) Jeram Rabari, (7)

Malji Rabari and (8) others.

25. In view of this Court, it would be appropriate to reproduce the order dated 09­05­2019 passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.8324

of 2018 which would indicate stage wise development in the case to

unearth the manner and method in which the entire record of Criminal

Inquiry No.15 of 2003 and the Criminal Case No.1931 of 2004 has gone

missing.

"Date : 09/05/2019 ORAL ORDER

1. This Court on 02.04.2019 passed the following order: "1. This is a petition, seeking following reliefs:

       R/CR.MA/1675/2021                                           ORDER



"8. ...

i. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present petition;"

ii.This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.6 to produce before this Honourable Court the entire record of Criminal Inquiry No. 15/2003 and Criminal Case No. 1931/2004, presently pending before the learned 7th Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalol Taluka Court;

iii.This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 25 to produce action taken report in relation to the Criminal Inquiry No. 15/2003 filed by the petitioners, before this Hon'ble Court;

iv.In the vent where the record of the Criminal Inquiry No. 15/2003 and the Criminal Case NO. 1932/2004 is foundincomplete or is found to have gone missing, this Hon'ble Court may, taking into consideration the Complaint dated07.07.2018 (ANNEXUREI), be pleased to direct the registration of an F.I.R. Against (1) Ranchhod Ambalal Patel resident of Rancharda, Kalol and who is also named as an accused in the Criminal Complaint No. 1932/2004, (2) Jayaram Cheharbhai Rabari, (3) Maljibhai Cheharbhai Rabari, (4) Kirti Jivanbhai Bharwad, 24 residing at Nr. Vejalpur Crossing, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, (5) Shwetaben Prabodhchandra Patel residing at Urmil, Nr. C.N. Vidyalaya, Ambawadi, (6) Chandrakant Patel residing at Jetalpur, Patelvas, Ahmedabad, (7) Saumil Prabodhchandra Patel residing at Urmil, Nr. C.N. Vidyalaya, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad, (8) Officers and employees of the Kalol Taluka Court, and (9) other individuals, who are involved in perpetrating the offence, whereby, the original record of court proceedings has gone missing;

v. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 25to produce the entire Report, if any, received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhinagar, before this Hon'ble Court and it is further prayed that such Report, if produced, a copy of the same be provided to the petitioners;

vi.Given the fact that substantial time has elapsed and in view of the fact and circumstances as narrated herein above, direct further investigation by the Respondent No.5, under the supervision of this Hon'ble Court, in relation to the Complaint No. 15/2003 filed by the petitioners;

vii.Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit, just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. This Court has heard the learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anshin Desai, with learned Advocate with learned Advocate, Mr.Contractor.

3. This Court notices that the report sent by the then Principal Sr.Civil Judge and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalol, Dated: 08.10.2018, stating, therein, that Criminal Case 1931/2004 filed against the accused, namely

R/CR.MA/1675/2021 ORDER

Patel Ranchhod @ Dagli Ambalal, was misplaced and could not be traced. Later on, said case was reconstructed vide order bearing No.B/4/33/526.2018, Dated: 05.09.2018, and the matter has been, after reconstruction, transferred to the Court of the learned 3rd Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalol, vide order of the learned Principal District Court, Gandhinagar. This Court, further, notices from the aforesaid communication, that after the case has been transferred the next date of hearing is 26.11.2018, where, it is pending at the stage of issuing process to the accused.

4. Learned Counsel has urged that there may be a requirement for the Court to direct initiation of the departmental inquiry considering the loss of papers from the date it went missing, till the petitioners move the Court. Since, vital documents being original PowerofAttorney, report of FSL and other relevant documents in original would be missing in wake of the aforesaid loss, let one set of the reconstructed papers be furnished to the present petitioners within ONE WEEK from the date of receipt of this order. Learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar, shall also let this Court know, as to whether any inquiry has been initiated or not and if, the answer is in affirmation, the details shall be SENT to this Court by the next date.

5. NOTICE, returnable on 12TH APRIL, 2019. Learned APP Waives service of notice for the respondent­State.

6. In the meant time, the directions issued above shall be complied with, WITHOUT FAIL."

2. Thereafter, the status of Criminal Inquiry No.15 of 2003 and Criminal Case No.1931 of 2004 pending before the Court of learned 7th Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalol, District Gandhinagar were permitted to be placed on record. Investigating Officer was also directed to remain present before this Court.

3. On 22.04.2019 following order came to be passed:

"Today from the Kalol police station the officer is present with the original papers which does not contain original power of attorney. The original report sent by the FSL is present in the file and so are the documents.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anshin Desai, appearing with learned advocate Mr. Parth Contractor.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant makes a request for the copies of these documents.

4. Learned APP has no objection, as it has been ensured that the same may be provided at the cost of the complainant.

R/CR.MA/1675/2021 ORDER

5. The report of the District Judge dated 9.4.2018, clearly suggests that no departmental inquiry has been initiated. Let the same be initiated as expeditiously as possible. The report shall be sent to this Court on its completion bearing in mind the original power of attorney.

6. S.O to 2.5.2019."

4. Thereafter, the matter when was fixed on 02.05.2019 the order passed by this Court is as follows:

"1.The Court has received the report from Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, Dated: 01.05.2019, indicating that he shall be initiating and completing the inquiry expeditiously.

2. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Desai, appearing with learned Advocate, Mr. Contractor, for the petitioner has urged that the Kalol Taluka Court has the entire original record, which has been submitted has muddamal.

3. Learned Principal District Judge shall INQUIRE into the matter and shall call for the same. Let the same be sent with Bailif to this Court on the next date, WITHOUT FAIL. This shall include the two reports of FSL of signature and also of thumb impression.

4. Affidavit is permitted to be brought on record. S.O. To 9TH MAY, 2019, on 02:30 p.m. Board."

5. Today the report has been sent by the learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar. According to him, two reports of the FSL of signature and thumb impression have not been found as originally in the file Criminal Case No.1931 of 2004. It is also his say that on the basis of the letter dated 30.08.2018 received from the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol, for according sanction to reconstruct case according to manual. Such sanction had been granted and accordingly reconstruction had been carried out.

It also appears that the copy of opinion formed by Handwriting and Photographic Bureau of Directorate of Forensic Science dated 27.05.2004 is found in from the reconstructed file, however, no original report is found.

6. The learned Principal District Judge, Kalol on 02.02.2018 had directed to hold discrete inquiry in relation to this untraceable papers including the papers of Criminal Case No.1931 of 2004. He has ensured to initiate the inquiry fixing the liability on the office according to service rules. Let the same be done at the earliest. If possible, inquiry to be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. So far as the papers of Criminal Case No.1931 of 2004 are concerned, the police agency, since, was also involved in placing the matters before the Court concerned, let the

R/CR.MA/1675/2021 ORDER

superior officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar look into the matter and do the needful which may include carrying out the discrete inquiry.

7. Let the matter appear on 25.06.2019. It is expected that the Criminal Case with reconstructed file shall proceed in the meantime. Direct Service is permitted."

26. It is also relevant to observe that the aforesaid case is still pending before this Court and the last order passed in the aforesaid matter is dated 15­12­ 2020 wherein following directions have been issued:

"3. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar to further go through the papers of the case and also inquire as regards erring Court officials who have indulged into such illegal activity and if any criminal offence is evealing against them, then, they shall also be implicated as accused after seeking necessary sanction from the concerned Principal District Judge. The Superintendent of Police shall expeditiously re­look into the matter and shall do the needful at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

4. The report submitted by learned Principal District Judge indicates that the concerned erring employee got Voluntary Retirement in the year 2016. The report reveals name of only one official of the Court. The record and proceedings indicates that records and files of 6 cases of such nature are missing and as per the statement of Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate, the number of cases of missing files may be higher.

5. In view of aforesaid factual position, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Gujarat to look into the matter and supervise through the concerned learned Principal District Judge so as to ascertain as to whether any other Court officials are involved in the aforesaid act and same may be also forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar for taking criminal actions as well as for suitable departmental action. This exercise should be carried out by the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Gujarat in consultation with the concerned learned District Judge on or before 31.03.2021. Registry to send the copy of the this Order to the concerned Authority/Court through Fax and Email forthwith."

27. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the view that the despite charge­ sheet being filed, the inquiry and the investigation is still at crucial

R/CR.MA/1675/2021 ORDER

juncture, the report as contemplated as by this court in the aforesaid matter

would put clear picture with regard to the role of the applicant. At this

stage, the Court is prima facie satisfied that there exist sufficient material

against the applicant regarding serious offence of the court record being

missing. The Court can draw strength from the view taken by the Apex

Court in the case of Naveen Singh (Supra), wherein the Court was dealt

with the bail application, wherein the issue of missing record of the court

was also addressed. The Apex Court also has held in para­8.2 and 8.3 as

under:

"8.2 If we consider the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that High Court has not adverted itself to the seriousness of the case and the offences alleged against Respondent no.2 - accused and the gravity of the matter. From the impugned order, it appears that the High Court has released Respondent No.2 - accused on bail in a routine and casual manner and without adverting to the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of the matter relating to forgery and/or manipulating the court order. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that High Court has only observed that since the innocence and complicity of the accused can 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 triable by the Magistrate and the charge sheet having been filed and the accused is languishing in jail since 22.11.2018, is entitled to be released on bail.

However, the High Court has not at all considered that the accused is charged for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and the maximum punishment for offence under Section 467 IPC is 10 years and fine/imprisonment for life and even for the offence under Section 471 IPC the similar punishment. Apart from that forging and/or manipulating the court record and getting benefit of such forged/manipulated court record is a very serious offence. 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. Therefore, the High Court ought to have been more cautious/serious in granting the bail to a person who is alleged to have forged/manipulated the court record and taken the benefit of such manipulated and forged court record more particularly when he has been chargesheeted having found prima facie case and the charge has been framed.

R/CR.MA/1675/2021 ORDER

8.3 Now, so far as the submissions on behalf of the accused that he has not obtained the certified copy of the judgment and order of the Learned Sessions Court dated 23.12.2002 in which there are allegations of forging and manipulation and he has not produced the same in the case against him under the Gangsters Act is concerned. From the order passed by Learned Special Court Gangsters Act, it appears that the judgment and order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge dated 23.12.2002 was produced in which Respondent No.2 - accused Mahesh was shown as acquitted. On the basis of the same, the Learned Special Court acquitted Respondent No.2 accused. Therefore, in fact, he is the beneficiary of the said forged/manipulated court order. The Special Court has taken note of the order. It is the case on behalf of the accused that it might have been produced by his brother - Pappu Singh who was doing Pairokar on his behalf. The aforesaid is neither here nor there. Once he is the beneficiary of such forged/manipulated court order and having taken advantage of such order thereafter it will not be open for the respondent­ accused to contend that it might have been done by his brother Pappu Singh who was doing Pairokar on his behalf.

At this stage, it is required to be noted that Pappu Singh has died subsequently. We do not express anything further on merits and go into detail as the trial is yet to take place and any further observation on merits may affect the case of the accused. Suffice it to say that in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the very serious allegations of forging/manipulating court order and having taken advantage of the same, the High Court is not justified in releasing Respondent No.2 on bail. Merely because the chargesheet is filed is no ground to release the accused on bail. The submission on behalf of the accused that as the record is now in the court's custody there is no chance of tampering is concerned, the allegation against the respondent accused are of tampering/forging/manipulating the court record which was in the custody of the court. 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."

28. The role attributed to the applicant indicates that the applicant was involved from the beginning that is to say in the alleged fabricating of

documents to deal with the land in question of the then original owner. In

connection with which the offence came to be registered only upon

intervention of the Court, which prima facie indicates that initially the

Police Authorities also had worked in hand in glow with the applicant and

when on the intervention of the Court, proper investigation was carried out

and charge­sheet came to be filed with all the necessary evidence. The

R/CR.MA/1675/2021 ORDER

entire case record of the criminal case has gone missing. The matter does

not end there, as the Court has reasons to believe that to make show of the

court record of this case has gone missing on account of gross negligence

on the part of the Court and its employee, record of other ten Court cases

were also managed to go missing. So that the suspicion is not focused on

this very case. This in the opinion of the Court is rather serious offence,

which needs to be dealt with properly and for which the Coordinate Bench

is also actively considering by calling for the appropriate reports.

29. At this stage, therefore, the Court is of the view that the application of the applicant for regular bail may not be considered.

30. The Court has also perused the order of the Sessions Court dated 13­01­2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application no.16 of 2021 and

cogent reasons have been assigned while rejecting the application for

regular bail of the applicant.

31. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the application does not deserve consideration and no case is made out for the exercise of discretion

in favour of the applicant for the grant of regular bail in connection with

aforesaid C.R. Hence, the application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(A.Y. KOGJE, J) PARESH SOMPURA