RAVINDRA SINGH, J. The above mentioned bail applications have been filed by Dinesh Chandra Srivastava, Ramendra Kumar Dwivedi and Munnu alias Javed, who are accused in case crime No. 222 of 2006 under sections 218, 219 and 466 I. P. C. P. S. Manjhanpur district Kaushambi. 2. The above mentioned bail applica tions are being disposed of by a common order. 3. That facts of the case in brief are that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Ayodhya Kant Srivastava, Senior Adminis trative Officer of Kaushambi Judgeship on 27. 11. 2006 at 2. 10. p. m. against the unknown miscreants alleging therein that S. T. No. 190 of 2005 arising out of the charge-sheet submitted in case crime No. 174 of 2005 un der sections 452, 307, 504, 506 and 302 I. P. C. was pending in the Court of learned Ses sions Judge, Kaushambi upto 18. 8. 2008 by that time P. W. 1 to P. W. 7 were examined, thereafter, the record of this session trial was transferred to the Court of F. T. C. 1, during the pendency of the proceedings of the ses sion trial, the record was sent to the copying department for preparing the certified cop ies, in the meantime, the forgery has been committed and the statements of P. W. 1 Babey Tabassum, P. W. 2 Mohd. Hanif, P. W. 3 Anwar Ahmad and P. W. 6 Dr. Sanjeev Yadav were tampered by some unknown persons by way of cutting, erasing and overwriting, the District Judge, came to know about this tampering on 8. 9. 2006 when a copy of the order dated 7. 9. 2006 passed by the High Court has been received and the High Court directed the District Judge, Kaushambi to hold an enquiry and lodge an F. I. R. against the persons respon sible, vide order dated 19. 10. 2006, the Dis trict Judge, Kaushambi conducted an en quiry on administrative side but could not come to any conclusion for fixing the re sponsibility of the tampering with the rec ord, because the record of this case remained in the hands of five employees, thereafter, the District Judge directed the first infor mant to lodge the F. I. R. 4. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Srivas tava, appearing on behalf of the applicant Dinesh Chandra Srivastava, Sri V. P. Srivas tava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava appearing on behalf of the ap plicants Ramendra Kumar Dwivedi and Munnu alias Javed and the learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the appli cants afe not named in the F. I. R. , during in vestigation no cogent evidence has been collected by the I. O. to show that the appli cants have committed the alleged offence even during inquiry conducted by the learned District Judge, Kaushambi it has not come into light that the applicants were in volved in the alleged offence. It is correct that the statements of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 have been changed by way of overwriting, erasing or adding some words and sentence but there is no Handwriting Experts Report to show that any over writing or addition of words has been done by the applicants. 6. It is further contended that there is no evidence so show that the applicant Munnu had made any conspiracy to commit the alleged offence, the applicants have been made the accused only on the basis of presumption because the record of the case remained in the hand of the appli cants Dinesh Chandra Srivastava, Ramen-dra Kumar Dwivedi. The applicant Munnu alias Javed the son of the deceased was doing pairvi on behalf of prosecution. The applicants have remained in jail for a long period. The applicant Dinesh Kumar Sri vastava, was the Reader of the Sessions Judge, Kaushambi, and the applicant Ramendra Kumar Dwivedi, was the Session Clerk, specimen of their handwriting have been taken and the same have been sent to the Handwriting Expert, the applicant are innocent, they have not committed the al leged offence, they have been falsely impli cated only on the basis of presumption, doubt and suspicion. 7. 7. In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. that it is a very serious case in which the statements of the witnesses in a murder case have been tampered, the record of this case remained in the hands of the applicants i. e. Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, and Ramendra Kumar Dwivedi, it has come in evidence that in a preplanned scheme the statements of the witnesses have been tampered so that the fair trial may not be done. 8. It is further submitted by the learned A. G. A. that the learned Sessions Judge, Kaushambi where the statements of P. W. 1 to 7 were recorded, transferred the case to Court of F. T. C. for speedy disposal, if the certified copy of the statement of P. W. 3 and other copy of the statements had not have been filed, which was contradict ing each other, before this Court during the hearing of the bail application of the co-accused Dulshad, who is involved in case crime No. 174 of 2005 under sections 452, 307, 504, 506 and 302 I. P. C. P. S. Kokhraj dis trict Kaushambi, would not have been de tected, the learned Sessions Judge did not take any effective action against the persons involved in the commission of the alleged forgery and contrary to it, he has tried to dilute the issue by way of submitting the inquiry report mentioning therein that it was not possible for fixing the responsibility upon any officer because the record of the case remained in the hands of five persons, it is a very serious case, therefore, the appli cant may not be released on bail. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A. G. A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that it is a case in which the original statement of P. Ws. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A. G. A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that it is a case in which the original statement of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 have been changed by way of overwriting, erasing and adding some words and sen tence, the record of this case remained in the hands of the applicants Dinesh Chandra Sri vastava, who is the Reader of the Court of Sessions Judge, and Sri Ramendra Kumar Dwivedi, who was the Sessions Clerk and it has come in evidence that the applicant Munnu alas Javed also played an important role by way of hatching a conspiracy for the commission of the alleged offence, subse quently, the hand writing of the applicants has been sent to the Hand Writing Expert but the result is still awaited, the forgery and tampering with the record has been done in the sessions trial of a murder case due to which act, the roots of the criminal justice have been shaken, if it could not be revealed in time the case would have been decided on the basis of forged statements, the gravity of the offence is too much and without express ing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicants are not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly the above mentioned bail applications are rejected. Applications Rejected. .