RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This appli cation has been filed by the applicant Gul shad with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 174 of 2005 un der sections 452, 307, 504, 506, 302 I. P. C. , P. S. Kokhraj, District Kaushambi. 2. The facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Anwar Ahmad on 19. 6. 2005 at 09. 30 a. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 19. 6. 2005 at about 09. 00 a. m. It is alleged that co-accused Irshad had taken the loan from the Bank at the name of Ilias, the younger brother of the deceased Mohd. Ayub, on account of this dispute there was tension in both the parties consequently the applicant and co-accused discharged the shots by their country made pistol and li censed gun at the deceased Mohd. Ayub consequently he sustained gun shot inju ries. The deceased Baby @ Tavassum the daughter of the deceased Mohd. Ayub came in rescue, she also sustained gun shot injuries. The FIR was lodged under sections 452, 307, 504, 506, 302 I. P. C. but on the same day of the alleged incident both the injured Ayub and Baby @ Tavassum suc cumbed to their injuries. According to the post-mortem examination reports the de ceased Mohd. Ayub had sustained two gun shot wound of entries having two gun shot wound of exit and the deceased Baby @ Tavassum had also sustained two gun shot wound of entry having two gun shot wounds of exit. The statement of both the deceased were recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C, they also made the allegation of firing against the applicant and co-accused Irshad, It is alleged that the applicant was armed with country made pistol and the co-accused Irshad was armed with licensed gun. 3. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Imran Ullah, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and Sri J. S. Sengar, learned Counsel for the com plainant. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the prosecution story is fully concocted and highly improbable. The presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of oc currence was highly doubtful. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the prosecution story is fully concocted and highly improbable. The presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of oc currence was highly doubtful. The state ment of the deceased persons were re corded under section 161 Cr. P. C. whereas according to the injuries sustained by them it was not possible to them to narrate the story as recorded by the I. O. in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. which shows that the investigation was not fair and there was no eye-witness to sup port the prosecution story. The applicant is in jail since 26. 6. 2005. He was having no criminal antecedent. 5. It is further contended that there are material contradictions in the state ments of the witnesses recorded by the Trial Court even the statements of the wit nesses PWI, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 6 have been tampered so that the applicant may be convicted because according to their origi nal statements there was a least chance of conviction of the applicant, therefore, de liberately the tampering with the original statements of the witnesses has been done in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kaushambi where the trial was pending. 6. In reply of the above contention it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that in the present case the FIR has been promptly lodged, it is broad day light incident. The specific role of firing is assigned to the applicant and co-accused. In this case two persons have lost their lives and both the deceased had sustained gun shot injuries but the tampering has been done with the original record of this case in the Court of learned Session Judge, Kaushambi which is shocking, even then the learned Sessions Judge did not take any action for such tampering and deliberately transferred the case to Court of F. T. C.-I so that on the basis of tampered record the case may be de cided and its benefit may be given to the accused persons. In this case all the wit nesses have been examined and under the direction of this Court the genuine record has been re-constructed with the approval of both the parties, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. 7. In this case all the wit nesses have been examined and under the direction of this Court the genuine record has been re-constructed with the approval of both the parties, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. 7. Considering the facts and circum stances of the case and submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant it appears that the allegation is that the applicant and co-accused Irshad discharged the shots by country made pis tol and licensed gun consequently two persons sustained gun shot injuries whose statements under section 161 Cr. P. C. have been recorded who supported the prosecu tion story but they succumbed to their in juries. The alleged incident is of broad day light, the FIR of this case has been promptly lodged. The record has been re constructed and all the witnesses have been examined the trial is at its conclusion. There is no good ground for releasing the applicant on bail, therefore, the prayer for releasing the applicant on bail is refused. 8. The statement of the witnesses which were tempered have been re constructed, thereafter, the Trial Court has proceeded further therefore, the interim order dated 19. 10. 2006 by which it was di rected that the judgment of this Court shall not be delivered is hereby vacated. The learned Sessions Judge, shall proceed fur ther in S. T. No. 190 of 2005 and shall de liver the judgment of this case in accor dance with the provisions of law. 9. After refusing bail to the appli cant, it is necessary to deal with the issue of tampering and forgery which has taken place in the present case. During argu ments it was revealed that the statement of PW 3 has changed in the Trial Court subse quently it was found that the original statements of the witnesses PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 6 were changed by way of adding some words and sentences, over writing and erasion in S. T. No. 190 of 2005 pending in the Court of Shri Ashok Srivastava, Sessions Judge, Kaushambi. At the stage of the hearing of the bail application the certified copy of statement of PW 3 has been filed by the Counsel for the applicant and photostat copy of the statement of PW 3 has been filed by the Counsel for the complainant but both were not same then it came to the notice of the Court that some tampering has been done with the state ment of the witness or forged copies have been filed, to verify the same this Court has passed the order dated 7. 9. 2006 directing the learned Session Judge, Kaushambi to examine the statement of PW 3 and to submit the report on or before 18. 9. 2006. Sri Ashok Srivastava, learned Sessions Judge, Kaushambi has sent his report dated 12. 9. 2006 in which it was mentioned that S. T. No. 190 of 2005 was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/f. T. C. No. 1, Kaushambi where it was pending and it has been reported that the tampering has been done with the original statement of PW 3 for which the inquiry has been initiated. Considering the report of learned Session Judge, Kaushambi and seriousness of the matter this Court has passed the order dated 19. 10. 2006 directing the learned Sessions Judge inquiring into the matter thoroughly and to submit the report within one month and after inquiry the criminal proceeding shall be initiated against the persons in volved in tampering with the original rec ord and it was also directed that the Ses sion Trial No. 190 of 2005 shall be with drawn from the Court of learned Addi tional Sessions Judge/f. T. C. No. 1, Kaushambi to the Court of Sessions Judge and the trial shall be done by learned District and Session Judge, Kaushambi. The learned Session Judge Kaushambi was di rected to explain the circumstances in which the part heard matter which was serious in nature was transferred to Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/f. T. C. No. 1, Kaushambi knowing it well that tampering has been done with the original record and directed not to deliver the judgment of this case till further order of this Court, in pursuance of the order dated 19. 10. 2006, Sri Ashok Srivastava then learned District and Session Judge, Kaushambi has sent his explanation and enquiry report dated 16. 11. 10. 2006, Sri Ashok Srivastava then learned District and Session Judge, Kaushambi has sent his explanation and enquiry report dated 16. 11. 2006 mention ing therein that the session trial No. 190 of 2005 has been recalled from the Court of F. T. C. I to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, it was at the stage of 313 Cr. P. C, the tempering has been done with the state ment of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 6 in the original record. On administrative side the sessions trial of this case was transferred to the Court of F. T. C. I on 18. 8. 2006 by that time he was not having any information about the tempering with the record, first time he came to know on 8. 9. 2006 when he received a copy of the order dated 7. 9. 2006 passed by this Court through fax message. It has also been mentioned that he was not able to provide sufficient time for session trials on account of administrative work and some other reasons. This case was to be decided within a period of six months as directed by the High Court vide order dated 22. 11. 2005, at that time he was hav ing 3 sessions trial including the sessions trial of the present case, in which there was direction of the High Court to conclude the proceedings within stipulated period. 10. It is also reported that he took over the charge of Sessions Judge in the first week of March, 2006, he came to knew that three session trial including the trial of the present case were to be decided within a stipulated period as directed by this Court but half of the period was passed, therefore, for making compliance of the order of this Court, the sessions trial of this case was transferred to the Court of F. T. C. I, whereas he had recorded the statements of 7 prosecution witnesses, the sessions trial of this case was transferred to the Court of F. T. C. I on 18. 8. 2006. 8. 2006. The learned Sessions Judge, Kaushambi has stated in inquiry report that the record of this case has remained in the hands of five officials and during enquiry no such evidence came forward to hold the guilty of any official and it was not possible to take action against any official on the basis of suspi cion because mere suspicion cannot be evi dence against any employee. " 11. After considering the explanation given by Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Ses sions Judge, Kaushambi, and the inquiry report submitted by him, this Court was not satisfied with the explanation and the inquiry report submitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaushambi because the issue of tampering with the record of a murder case was very serious in nature, it was a shocking incident which had oc curred in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kaushambi, being the District and Sessions Judge, he was the head of Kaushambi Judgeship, he was under obligation to take strict action as soon as he came to know that such forgery has been committed in the Court itself and the statement of P. W. I, P. W. 2 P. W. 3 and P. W. 6 have been changed by way of adding some words and sen tences, overwriting and erason, but the learned Sessions Judge did not take any positive action against the persons who committed this offence even the learned Sessions Judge did not consider the gravity of the order dated 19. 10. 2006 passed by this Court by which it was directed that the learned Session? Judge shall hold an in quiry and sessions trial No. 190 of 2005 transferred to the Court of learned Addi tional Sessions Judge/f. T. C-I Kaushambi was recalled and he was directed to explain as to why a part heard matter was trans ferred to the Court of F. T. C.-I Kaushambi. The learned Sessions Judge, Kaushambi did the formality of conducting the inquiry and without fixing the liability of any per son and reported that on the basis of sus picion no liability can be fixed such inquiry report was not expected to be submitted by a responsible officer. The learned Sessions Judge was directed to initiate the criminal proceedings also after inquiry but at a be lated stage formality of lodging the F. I. R. against five unknown persons of the Court was done on 27. 11. The learned Sessions Judge was directed to initiate the criminal proceedings also after inquiry but at a be lated stage formality of lodging the F. I. R. against five unknown persons of the Court was done on 27. 11. 2006 but after lodging that F. I. R. the I. O. of that case crime No. 222 of 2006 under sections 218, 219 and 466 I. P. C. P. S. Manjhanpur district Kaushambi also did not take any interest in the investi gation, after lodging the F. I. R. on 27. 11. 2006 next parcha of the case diary was written by the I. O. on 19. 12. 2006 Sur prisingly the I. O. recorded the statement of the first informant on 10. 1. 2007 when he was directed vide order dated 8. 1. 2007 to appear before this Court on 10. 1. 2007, the I. O. of this case was not taking any interest in doing investigation of this case, thereaf ter, S. P. Kaushambi and S. H. O. Manjhan pur were also summoned to ensure the proper investigation, thereafter the I. O. of this case concluded the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against six per sons namely Dinesh Chandra Srivastava, the Munsarim of District Sessions Judge, Ramendra Kumar Dwivedi, the Sessions Clerk of the Sessions Judge, Munnu alias Javed and Ashok Kumar Verma, D. G. C. (Criminal) Ram Harsh Verma, Advocate, Meraj Ahmad, which shows that Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava the then District and Sessions Judge, Kaushambi, was trying to close the chapter submitting the report that no action may be taken against any officer on the basis of suspicion whereas Mun sarim and Sessions Clerk, D. G. C (Criminal) working in his Court have been charge sheeted subsequently, when this Court took a very serious note of this issue. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Kaushambi deliberately did not take any action against of the officials of his Court and person involved in the commission of this case, even he did not discharge his le gal obligation by way of lodging the F. I. R. etc. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Kaushambi deliberately did not take any action against of the officials of his Court and person involved in the commission of this case, even he did not discharge his le gal obligation by way of lodging the F. I. R. etc. suo moto immediately when he came to know that forgery has been committed in his Court, the conduct of the learned Sessions Judge was also unusual when he transferred the session trail of this Court after recording the statement of 7 witnesses to the Court of F. T. C.-I, the explanation given by the learned Sessions Judge for transferring this case to the Court of F. T. C. at the pretext that there was an order of the High Court to conclude the proceedings of this case within six months, appears to be skin saving because the date on which this case was transferred to the Court of F. T. C.-I the period of six month was expired, it has not been reported by the learned Sessions Judge that in two others cases it was also directed to be concluded the proceedings within a stipulated period have been transfered to another Court. It appears that ses sions Judge was having knowledge that the record had been tampered with and by way of transferring the case to the Court of F. T. C.-I, it was intended to be decided the case on the basis of tampered record, co-incidentally, it has been noticed by this Court that forgery has been committed in the record of the Sessions Trial, if this Court would not have taken cognizance of this forgery, great injustice would have been done, in deciding the case on the basis of tampered evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, Kaushambi has tried to save the skin of the delinquent persons (wrongdoers) whereas it was expected from the District and Sessions Judge, Kaushambi to take prompt action against the persons who were involved in the commission of the offence. The F. I. R. was lodged on 27. 11. 2006 at P. S. Manjhanpur but after lodging the F. I. R. the investigation was not initiated when this Court took strong view and summoned the S. H. O. Manjhanpur on 8. 1. 2007 then the statement of the first informant was recorded on 10. 1. The F. I. R. was lodged on 27. 11. 2006 at P. S. Manjhanpur but after lodging the F. I. R. the investigation was not initiated when this Court took strong view and summoned the S. H. O. Manjhanpur on 8. 1. 2007 then the statement of the first informant was recorded on 10. 1. 2007 even thereafter, I. O. was not interested in doing proper investigation when this Court has taken a serious view the I. O. proceeded furthers took the action against the accused person which shows that under the pres sure of the District and Sessions Judge, Kaushambi the investigation of this case was held up because the F. I. R. was lodged against five employee of the judgeship. It is an incident by which the root of criminal justice has been shaken, the conduct of the then District and Sessions Judge Kaushambi is highly deplorable, he had failed to perform his legal obligation, it is a matter in which stern action is required to be taken against Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, the then District and Sessions Judge, Kaushambi, therefore, this matter may be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice forthwith for passing necessary order to take action against him by way of initiating the departmental proceedings in view of the above mentioned circumstances. 12. In view of the above discussion and recommendations this application is finally disposed of. The office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Session Judge, Kaushambi for delivering the judg ment of S. T. No. 190 of 2005, in accordance with law. .