Summary
The Supreme Court set aside bail granted to an accused alleged to have benefited from a forged judicial order in another criminal proceeding. The High Court failed to address the gravity of manipulating court records and the resulting threat to administration of justice. Filing the charge sheet, trial by a Magistrate and the record’s present judicial custody did not adequately justify the order. The complainant who had initiated the inquiry could challenge bail. All observations were confined to bail and the trial remained open on merits.
Issues
- Whether bail had been granted without considering the gravity of alleged manipulation of judicial records.
- Whether the person whose complaint led to the judicial inquiry had standing to challenge bail.
Held
- Alleged forgery of judicial records, and use of the resulting order to obtain an acquittal, directly implicated administration of justice. The High Court failed to consider that gravity or the serious punishments involved. (¶ 8.1-8.2)
- Filing a charge sheet did not itself justify release. The record’s judicial custody did not answer the allegation of tampering with a record already in court custody; the defence attributing the conduct to the accused’s brother did not resolve the prima facie bail concern. (¶ 8.3)
- The appellant’s complaint had led to the High Court inquiry and subsequent FIR. He had standing to challenge bail; in the circumstances involving alleged manipulation of court orders, the objection to locus did not prevent review. (¶ 8.4)
- The accused was to surrender forthwith. Observations concerned bail alone and the trial was to proceed independently on its merits. (¶ 9)
Result
Appeal allowed; bail order set aside and accused directed to surrender forthwith if not already surrendered.