JUDGEMENT 1. All these four cases were listed on 7.1.2009 but none of the counsel for the petitioner in any of the aforesaid cases appeared, although learned counsel for the State of Bihar as well as learned Oath Commissioners of this court in all the said cases were present and hence the cases were adjourned. Today also when the aforesaid cases are called out no counsel for the petitioner in any of the said cases appears, however learned counsel for the State of Bihar as well as learned Oath Commissioners in all the four cases are present. The matters are very serious concerning dispensation of justice as frauds were sought to be played by unscrupulous persons to mislead the court by making false statements on affidavit and annexing fabricated papers. In the said circumstances and in view of my order dated 4.8.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5812 of 2008 all the said four cases have been sent to this court vide order dated 17.12.2008 passed by Hon ble the Acting Chief Justice. 2. On perusal of the records of the cases, it transpires that petitioner Bablu Singh @ Babla son of Ramashish Singh is an accused in Barauni P.S. Case No. 256 of 2002 which was recorded as G.R. No. 1471 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 364/34, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code which was earlier pending before Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Begusarai. The said case was with respect to kidnapping and murder of seven years old grandson of the informant. 3. The petitioner was arrested in the said case on 2.8.2005 and he applied for bail which was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, whereafter he filed B.P. No. 904 of 2006 before the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai, who rejected the same by order dated 9.6.2006. The relevant facts subsequent to the said order have now come into light, which shows that after the said order of the learned court below, the same petitioner Bablu Singh @ Babla filed five Criminal Miscellaneous Cases for bail one after the other in this court, which are as follows: (a) Cr. Misc. No. 48387 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner on 16.11.2006 before this Court for bail through Mr. Misc. No. 48387 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner on 16.11.2006 before this Court for bail through Mr. Nakul Kumar Jamuar, Advocate and the affidavit in the bail petition was sworn by one Manish Kumar claiming to be the brother of the petitioner, who was identified by Mr. Sanjay Kumar clerk of the said advocate. In the said bail petition the number of the case, the number of G.R. case and the offences alleged were all correctly mentioned. However, the said petition was rejected on 16.3.2007 by Hon ble Justice Mrs. Sheema Ali Khan. No discrepancy is found in the said petition. (b) Cr. Misc. No. 42768 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner on 14.9.2007 in this Court for the same relief through Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate and in the said petition affidavit was sworn by one Ramdeo Singh, claiming to be the cousin of petitioner on 7.9.2007, who was identified by one Mr. I.K. Singh claiming to be the clerk of the said advocate. In paragraph 2 of the said petition it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner had not moved this Court for bail earlier. In paragraph 1 as well as in the prayer portion of the said petition, case number was mentioned as P.S. Case No. 255 of 2002 whereas in the F.I.R. at page 6, Barauni P.S. Case No. 256 of 2002 was mentioned and the sections involved were mentioned as 364/34, 502/201 I.P.C. However, the impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Begusarai attached to the said petition was dated 13.6.2006 passed in B.P. No. 56 of 2006 regarding Barauni P.S. Case No. 256 of 2002, and copy of the said order attached to the bail petition was a certified copy of the impugned order. This petition was placed on 24.9.2007 before Hon ble Mr. Justice Dharnidhar Jha who called for case diary in Barauni P.S. Case No. 255 of 2002, as per the recital in the bail petition. (c) Cr. Misc. No. 46227 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner on 3.10.2007 again for the same relief during the pendency of the abovementioned criminal miscellaneous through Mr. Ashok Prasad, Advocate and the affidavit in the petition was sworn by Ramdeo Singh, the cousin of the petitioner on 30.9.2007, who was identified by one Mr. N.K. Singh claiming to be the clerk of Mr. A.K. Prasad, Advocate. Ashok Prasad, Advocate and the affidavit in the petition was sworn by Ramdeo Singh, the cousin of the petitioner on 30.9.2007, who was identified by one Mr. N.K. Singh claiming to be the clerk of Mr. A.K. Prasad, Advocate. In the said petition also in paragraph-2 it was specifically stated that petitioner had not moved this Court earlier, whereas in paragraph-1 and in the prayer portion of the said petition the number of the case was noted as P.S, Case No. 250 of 2002. The F.I.R. which was annexed as Annexure-1 to the said petition clearly showed that it was with respect to Barauni P.S. Case No. 256 of 2002 but at page-9 of the said Annexure-1, "256" was by pen made "250" at the top of the page as well as in the registration portion. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said Annexure-1 also "256" was made "250" by interpolation. The impugned order in the said petition was the same i.e. 13.6.2006, except that it mentioned P.S. Case No. 250/ 2002. The said case was placed before Hon ble Mr. Justice S.C. Jha, on 30.11.2007 who was pleased to call for case diary of Barauni P.S. Case No. 250 of 2002, as per the recital in the bail petition. (d) However, when Xerox Copy of Barauni P.S. Case No. 250 of 2002 was received from Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai it revealed that in the said case the petitioner was not an accused and the sections involved were 341, 323 and 325 of the l.P.C. Hence the office of the High Court reported that the case diary did not tally with the F.I.R. Thereafter the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai sent a letter dated 5.2.2007 stating that case diary of Barauni P.S. Case No. 256 of 2002 has already been sent in Cr. Misc. No. 42768 of 2007. But before that on 31.1.2008 the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai sent a letter to the High Court that although case diary of Barauni P.S. Case No. 250 of 2002 was called by reminder but it is not the correct case number, whereas Barauni P.S. Case No. 256 of 2002, G.R. No. 1471 of 2002 has already been committed to Sessions on 5.11.2007 and is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Begusarai. Hence, the said letter of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai clearly revealed that petitioner was accused in Barauni P.S. Case No. 256 of 2002 ( G.R. No. 1471 of 2002) and not in P.S. Case No. 250 of 2002, 251 of 2002 or 255 of 2002. (e) Cr. Misc. No. 54750 of 2007 was also filed by the petitioner on 5.12.2007 for the same purpose through Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for bail in which affidavit was sworn by the same Ramdeo Singh, cousin of the petitioner on 23.11.2007, who was identified by one Mr. R.K. Singh claiming to be the clerk of the said advocate. In paragraph 2 of the said petition it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner had not moved this Court earlier, whereas in paragraph-1 and in prayer portion of the said petition, the number of the case was mentioned as Barauni P.S. Case No. 156 of 2002 in typed letters. However, by interpolation it was subsequently made 256 by pen, but there was neither any mark nor any initial of the Oath Commissioner, hence it is clear that it was subsequently added illegally. Furthermore, the sections mentioned therein were only 302 and 210 of the Penal Code without mentioning Section 364/34 of the Penal Code. Surprisingly enough in the prayer portion the bail was sought to be to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, although already the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 5.11.2007 and was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Begusarai. The F.I.R., Annexure-1, also had interpolation as Barauni P.S. Case No. 156 of 2002 was mentioned and it was also not in accordance with the format prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code and in the registration portion at page 10 of Annexure-1 Barauni P.S. Case No. 156 of 2002 dated 14.6.2002 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act was mentioned which was not in the original bail petition. However, the impugned order attached to the petition was the same i.e. dated 13.6.2006 passed in B.P. Case No. 56 of 2006, but in the second line of the said order Barauni P.S. Case No. 56/02 was typed and subsequently it was changed to "256/ 02" by pen, whereas even the contents of second last paragraph also differed from the contents of the impugned order of the earlier cases. Ultimately this case was placed on 31.1.2008 before Hon ble Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh who called for the case diary of Barauni P.S. Case No. 256 of 2002 from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai. (f) However, the office vide memo No. 3093-94 Cr.P. dated 6.2.2008 signed by Assistant Registrar (Admn.) called the case diary of Barauni P.S. Case No. 156 of 2002 although order of this Court was with respect to Barauni P.S. Case No. 256 of 2002. In reply thereto the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barauni, wrote to the office of this Court on 20.2.2008 that Barauni P.S. Case No. 156 of 2002 was not against the petitioner who is an accused in Barauni P.S. Case No. 256 of 2002 which has been committed to the Court of Sessions. However, the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai on 26.2.2008 wrote to the High Court that case diary of P.S. Case No. 256 of 2002 has already been sent to this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 42768 of 2007. Thereafter the matter remained pending before this Court. (g) Cr. Misc. No. 5812 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner on 4.2.2008 again for the same relief of bail through Mr. Baleshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate, and the affidavit was sworn by the same Ramdeo Singh, cousin of the petitioner on 4.2.2008, who was identified by one Mr. Gopal Sharma claiming to be the clerk of Mr. B.G. Tilak, Advocate. In paragraph-2 of the said petition it was specifically mentioned that petitioner had not moved this Court for bail earlier, whereas in paragraph-1 and in prayer portion of the said petition the number of case was mentioned as Barauni P.S. Case No. 56 of 2002 for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 210 of the Penal Code only. But by subsequent interpolation number "2" was inserted by pen before "56" without any mark or initial of the Oath Commissioner. It may be interesting to note that in paragraph- 12 also the date was changed by interpolation without any initial or any red ink. The red ink put on some portion of the said petition differed from the shade of the ink used by the Oath Commissioner which clearly showed that the said interpolation was committed after the bail petition was filed. The red ink put on some portion of the said petition differed from the shade of the ink used by the Oath Commissioner which clearly showed that the said interpolation was committed after the bail petition was filed. In the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) and in the impugned order also the number of the case was mentioned as Barauni P.S. Case No. 56 of 2002 but subsequently "2" was added by pen making it "256" which can be seen at page 1, 8 and 10 of the said F.I.R. The impugned order was the same as was in the earlier case i.e. 13.6.2006 but in the second line the word "petitioner named in the F.I.R." had been omitted and some other word had been added. When the said case was listed before this court on 29.4.2008 it had no inkling of the said matters and hence the said case was allowed by this court and petitioner was directed to be released in Barauni P.S. Case No. 56 of 2002. (h) However, on 22.5.2008 the case was listed under the heading to be mentioned at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner who sought modification of order dated 29.4.2008 praying to change P.S. Case No. 56 of 2002 mentioned therein to P.S. Case No. 256 of 2002. At that moment this Court felt that there was something fishy and hence the Deputy Registrar (Criminal) was directed to intimate the concerned Judicial Magistrate not to proceed in accordance with the order passed by this Court on 29.4.2008, by which the prayer for bail was allowed, and the case was directed to be listed again under the heading "to be mentioned" on 25.6.2008. The case was again listed on 2.7.2008 but on that day learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear and in compliance of order dated 22.5.2008, the Deputy Registrar (Criminal) submitted a note on the basis of which the Assistant Registrar-I, was directed to transmit the order of this Court dated 29.4.2008 and 22.5.2008 to the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in connection with Barauni P.S. Case No. 256 of 2002 at once through fax to look into the questions as to why such certified copies are being issued from the district court and how such orders are being passed by the learned court below. 4. It was only thereafter that the aforementioned facts with respect to Cr. Misc. 4. It was only thereafter that the aforementioned facts with respect to Cr. Misc. No. 42768 of 2007, Cr. Misc. No. 46227 of 2007 and Cr. Misc. No. 54750 of 2007 came into light, whereafter by order dated 9.7.2008 the said three cases were taken up before the Hon ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad but no one appeared for the petitioner in any of the said cases and bailable warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the deponent in those cases namely, Ramdeo Singh for his appearance on 6.8.2008. 5. However, in Cr. Misc. No. 5812 of 2008 an order was passed on 2.7.2008 by this court also directing the Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Begusarai, to send his report. In compliance of the said order the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Begusarai sent his report dated 26.7.2008 stating the entire matter in detail disclosing startling facts which showed not only the connivance and illegalities committed by the office of the District Court but also indicated the negligence and illegalities committed by criminal stamp reporting section of this court apart from the fraud played by persons concerned, including the petitioner and the deponent upon this court, which are as follows: (i) Petitioner Bablu Singh @ Babla alongwith the deponent Ramdeo Singh played fraud upon this Court by repeatedly making false statements in the petitions. (ii) They committed interpolation in the certified copies of the impugned order, the first information report and the affidavited petitions in collusion with the advocates, advocate clerks and other persons concerned. (iii) The concerned offices of this Court allowed such interpolations to be made after filing of the bail petitions without making any note of it. (iv) Although no B.P. No. 56 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner nor was it disposed of by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Begusarai on 13.6.2006 as per the said report, but the petitioner obtained forged certified copies of the said order from the District Court, Begusarai and filed it in this Court. (v) The F.I.R. filed in the High Court by the petitioner in his bail petitions must have been obtained from the Copying Department of the District Court, but it contained clear interpolations and mentioned wrong case numbers and sections etc. (v) The F.I.R. filed in the High Court by the petitioner in his bail petitions must have been obtained from the Copying Department of the District Court, but it contained clear interpolations and mentioned wrong case numbers and sections etc. (vi) Although all the bail petitions filed in this Court were in the name of the same petitioner, but the concerned office of the High Court could not detect that he had earlier also filed petition for bail. (vii) Although there were clear inconsistencies in case numbers and sections etc. in first paragraph, prayer portion, F.I.R. and impugned order of all the bail petitions, but the criminal stamp reporting sections could not detect it. (viii) Photo Copy of the certified copy of FIR filed in Cr. Misc. No. 54750 of 2007 as Annexure-1 was not as per the format prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the Criminal stamp reporting section did not raise any objection. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court by order dated 4.8.2008 recalled its order dated 29.4.2008 by which the bail petition bearing Cr. Misc. No. 5812 of 2008 was allowed and the said case was directed to be listed before Hon ble Mr. Justice C.K.Prasad to be considered alongwith other three similar cases, namely, Cr. Misc. No. 42768 of 2007, Cr. Misc. No. 46227 of 2007 and Cr. Misc. No. 54750 of 2007, which were already pending before his Lordship. 7. It transpires that thereafter all the aforesaid four cases were taken up by Hon ble Mr. Justice C.K.Prasad on 17.9.2008 when the Superintendent, Divisional Jail, Begusarai, was present in person and in view of the apology tendered by him the court held that there was no need to proceed against him, as the vakalatnamas filed in the aforesaid four bail petitions were forged and were not obtained from the jail. However, notices were directed to be issued to the advocate clerks who had identified the deponent in the affidavits and the Advocate Oath Commissioners who had administered the oaths to the deponent in the aforesaid four cases. It may be noted that in all the aforesaid four cases, the same deponent had sworn affidavit, namely Ramdeo Singh. In these circumstances the Hon ble Court directed that the report of handwriting expert regarding signatures of petitioner be awaited and that the petitioner be produced on the next date fixed i.e. 30.9.2008. It may be noted that in all the aforesaid four cases, the same deponent had sworn affidavit, namely Ramdeo Singh. In these circumstances the Hon ble Court directed that the report of handwriting expert regarding signatures of petitioner be awaited and that the petitioner be produced on the next date fixed i.e. 30.9.2008. It transpires that the learned Oath Commissioners of the aforesaid four cases had nothing to do with the said fraud and merely in course of their officiel duties they had recorded the affidavits of the deponents who were duly identified by the Advocates Clerks in accordance with the specific provisions. 8. However, on 30.9.2008 the case was listed but was adjourned to 20.10.2008 on the request of Oath Commissioners but from the office note it transpired that the Advocates Clerks, namely, I.K.Singh, N.K. Singh, R.K. Singh and Gopal Sharma, who had identified the deponents in the affidavits of the aforesaid cases, could not be traced out, but the Oath Commissioners submitted that they can recognize the Advocates Clerks and they will give their details. 9. Thereafter the case was listed on 20.10.2008 before the said Hon ble Court and four affidavits were sworn in the four cases by the Advocate Oath Commissioners naming the advocates clerks who had identified the deponent in the said four cases. The said Advocates Clerks are as follows: (a) Mr. l.K. Singh, Advocate Clerk of Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate. (b) Mr. N.K.Singh, Advocate Clerk of Mr. A.K. Prasad, Advocate. (c) Mr. R.K.Singh, Advocate Clerk of Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate. (d) Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate Clerk of Mr. B.G.Tilak, Advocate. 10. In the said circumstances the court directed the Registry to verify as to whether any valid certificates have been given to the aforesaid Advocates Clerk. The report of handwriting expert also showed that the petitioner had not signed the vakalatnama in the aforesaid four cases as they were not in his handwriting. Furthermore, it was found that there was no seal of Superintendent, Jail, Begusarai but in all the vakalatnamas of the aforesaid four cases seal of Assistant Jailer had been put. In the said circumstances this court vide order dated 20.10.2008 directed for issuance of bailable warrant of arrest against Manish Kumar who was the full brother of the petitioner and was the deponent in the first bail petition bearing Cr. Misc. No. 48387 of 2006, which had already been rejected earlier. In the said circumstances this court vide order dated 20.10.2008 directed for issuance of bailable warrant of arrest against Manish Kumar who was the full brother of the petitioner and was the deponent in the first bail petition bearing Cr. Misc. No. 48387 of 2006, which had already been rejected earlier. 11. On 20.11.2008 the matter was again placed before his Lordship Hon ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad and His Lordship was pleased to direct for issuance of notice to Mr. Vinod Kumar, Mr. A.K. Prasad, Mr. R.K. Sharma and Mr. B.G. Tilak, Advocates, whose clerks, namely, l.K. Singh, N.K. Singh, R.K. Sharma and Gopal Sharma had identified the deponents. Furthermore, notices were also issued to Advocates Clerk namely, Gopal Sharma through Mr. Gyanendra Dwevedi, Advocate Oath Commissioner, whereafter the case was directed to be listed on 17.12.2008. However on 17.12.2008 His Lordship Hon ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad, as Acting Chief Justice transferred all the aforesaid four case before this court. 12. When the said cases were listed before this court on 7.1.2009 all the learned counsel for the State in the aforesaid four cases were present in court and learned Oath Commissioners were also present in the court but neither learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid four cases were present nor their alleged registered clerks were present in the court and hence these cases were adjourned for today. Today the said learned counsel for the State as well as learned Oath Commissioners in all the four cases are present. Out of four Advocates Clerks, only Mr. Gopal Sharma appears and submits that he was the advocate clerk of Mr. B.G. Tilak, Advocate, only till February 2008, but he accepts that he had identified the deponent in Cr. Misc. No. 5812 of 2008 at the instance of an advocate whom he does not recognize; The said case was filed on 4.2.2008 through Mr. Baleshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate but the said Advocate Clerk, namely, Gopal Sharma clearly stated that he was not the Advocate Clerk of any Baleshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate. 13. Misc. No. 5812 of 2008 at the instance of an advocate whom he does not recognize; The said case was filed on 4.2.2008 through Mr. Baleshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate but the said Advocate Clerk, namely, Gopal Sharma clearly stated that he was not the Advocate Clerk of any Baleshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate. 13. Apart from the said Advocate Clerk no other Advocate Clerk has appeared nor learned advocates for the petitioner in the aforesaid four cases have appeared nor any affidavit/petition/application/show- cause has been filed on their behalf and hence this court is not in a position to ascertain as to whether the said four persons through whom the said bail petitions were filed were even Advocates and also as to whether they were involved in the illegalities and fraud played upon this court by making false statements and annexing fabricated papers in the bail petitions filed through them. In the said circumstances, this court having no other option left refers the matter to the Bihar State Bar Council with respect to the aforesaid advocates M/s Vinod Kumar, Ashok Kumar Prasad, Raj Kumar Sharma and Baleshwar Prasad Singh through whom the aforesaid bail petitions had been filed containing false statements and fabricated documents for enquiring the matter, taking appropriate steps and passing necessary orders in accordance with law. 14. Furthermore I.K. Singh, Advocate Clerk of Mr. V.K. Singh, N.K. Singh, Advocate Clerk of Mr. A.K. Prasad, R.K. Singh, Advocate Clerk of Mr. R.K. Sharma, and Gopal Sharma, Advocate Clerk of Mr. B.G. Tilak, had identified the deponent of the aforesaid four bail petitions, out of whom three appears to be non-existent, hence this court having no other option left refers the matter to the Registrar General for issuance of notice to the said Advocates Clerks and for ascertaining the facts with respect to them in connection with the identification of the deponent in the aforesaid four cases and the part played by them after initiating a proceeding with respect thereto and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 15. 15. The Registrar General, Patna High Court is also directed to get a criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner Bablu Singh @ Babla as well as against the deponents of his bail petitions, namely Ramdeo Singh and Manish Kumar Singh so that the matter may be investigated by a police officer, not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, with regard to the part played by them in the fraud as well as with regard to the implication of any person of the District Court, Begusarai or of this High Court in the said illegality and fraud played upon this court by making false statements on affidavits and annexing fabricated papers in the petitions only with a view to mislead this court and obtain a favourable order. Thereafter the said criminal case has to proceed in accordance with the provisions of law before an appropriate court which shall pass necessary orders and decide the same expeditiously. 16. With the aforesaid directions ail the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are hereby dismissed. 17. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the Superintendent of Police of Begusarai, the learned District Judge of Begusarai, the Registrar General of Patna High Court and the Bihar State Bar Council, immediately.