Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2397 (HP)

Court on its own motion v. Shivender Batish

2011-08-16

KULDIP SINGH

body2011
JUDGEMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MMO Nos. 127, 128, 129 and 130 of 2011 which have arisen on account of suo motu action taken by this Court against the orders dated 11.7.2011, 13.7.2011 and 18.7.2011 passed by Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Shimla on the bail applications No.78-S/22 of 2011, 83-S/22 of 2011, 84-S/22 of 2011 and 88-S/22 of 2011 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. releasing Shivender Batish, Dinesh Kapoor, Duni Chand Yadav and Kuldeep Rao on bail in FIR No. 60 of 2011 registered on 24.5.2011 at Police Station East, Shimla under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B IPC. 2. The facts, in brief, are that a secret information was received at the Police Station on 24.4.2011 that a forged copy of judgment dated 18.12.2010 of the High Court has been prepared in Combined Pre-Medical Test (CPMT) case arising out of FIR No. 140 of 2006 registered on 28.7.2006 at Police Station, Boileauganj. In the forged copy of judgment, there is mention of Cr.MMO No. 179 of 2010 titled as Ritika Kapoor and others vs. State of H.P. and others. This copy of judgment was under consideration in the Secretariat for giving benefit of service to accused Kuldeep Rao, Executive Engineer, HPPWD. On receipt of this information, Cr.MMO No. 179 of 2010 was checked on the web site of the High Court, the message displayed was ‘either judgment not uploaded or case does not exist’. 3. The case appeared to be a preparation of forged document for obtaining undue benefit, hence FIR No. 60 dated 24.5.2011 was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The status report of the case has been filed in Cr.MMO No. 127 of 2011 and record perused. It has been stated that it has come during investigation that in the High Court Cr.MMO No. 179 of 2010 is registered in the name of Gian Chand Sood vs. Shivani whereas no Cr.MMO No. 179 of 2010 titled as Ritika and others vs. State of H.P. and others has been registered and decided by the High Court. 4. Kuldeep Rao and Haresh Sood were arrested on 24.5.2011. Haresh Sood during interrogation disclosed that in October/November, 2010 for quashing FIR in CPMT case, Kuldeep Rao, Shivender Batish and Dinesh Kapoor had talked with him in Hotel Holiday Home, Shimla, Duni Chand Yadav was also informed on telephone. 4. Kuldeep Rao and Haresh Sood were arrested on 24.5.2011. Haresh Sood during interrogation disclosed that in October/November, 2010 for quashing FIR in CPMT case, Kuldeep Rao, Shivender Batish and Dinesh Kapoor had talked with him in Hotel Holiday Home, Shimla, Duni Chand Yadav was also informed on telephone. All four accused were to pay ‘ 1,00,000/- to him. Kuldeep Rao during interrogation told that talk took place with Haresh Sood through Dinesh Kapoor. The power of attorneys were signed in Hotel Holiday Home, Shimla and the payment was made to Haresh Sood at that place. He further disclosed that Haresh Sood told in January that in the reserved judgment decision had come, Shivender Batish supplied him photocopy of the judgment which in turn he submitted to the Principal Secretary, HPPWD in the Secretariat. 5. Lap top of Shivender Batish was taken into possession on 27.5.2011. On 28.5.2011 Haresh Sood and Kuldeep Rao were released on bail. Lap top of Ankur Batish son of Shivender Batish was taken into possession. On 29.5.2011 Shivender Batish and Dinesh Kapoor disclosed that they handed over power of attorneys after signing to Haresh Sood in Hotel Holiday Home. Haresh Sood supplied them copies of judgment. Duni Chand Yadav on 1.6.2011 disclosed that he signed the power of attorney and paid !15,000/- to Haresh Sood through Dinesh Kapoor. On 2.6.2011 pen-drive of Shivender Batish was taken into possession. 6. Shivender Batish, Duni Chand Yadav and Dinesh Kapoor were arrested on 3.6.2011. They disclosed that they signed the power of attorneys in favour of the advocate. They also disclosed that copy of judgment was supplied to them in the meeting held on 16.5.2011 in Hotel Holiday Home. Duni Chand however, took the stand no copy of judgment was supplied to him. Haresh Sood disclosed that on the lap top of Shivender Batish in Hotel Holiday Home, Shimla in January/February, 2011, the judgment was corrected but this was contradicted by Shivender Batish. At one point even Dinesh Kapoor admitted that judgment was corrected but lateron he denied. 7. It has come in investigation that CPU was recovered from the house of Haresh Sood from Bhunter. CPU of Ashu brother-in-law of Haresh Sood was also taken into possession. Lap top and CPU of Kuldeep Rao were also taken into possession. At one point even Dinesh Kapoor admitted that judgment was corrected but lateron he denied. 7. It has come in investigation that CPU was recovered from the house of Haresh Sood from Bhunter. CPU of Ashu brother-in-law of Haresh Sood was also taken into possession. Lap top and CPU of Kuldeep Rao were also taken into possession. Kuldeep Rao has disclosed that photocopy of the judgment was given by Haresh Sood to him but Haresh Sood has denied that he supplied photocopy of judgment to Kuldeep Rao. The accused remained in contact with each other on mobile phones during this period. Kuldeep Rao, Dinesh Kapoor, Shivender Batish and Duni Chand Yadav and their daughters are accused in CPMT case. All accused in FIR No. 60 of 2011 in conspiracy with each other prepared the fake judgment for taking benefit of the judgment. 8.Kuldeep Rao during investigation disclosed that on 24/25.2.2011 Haresh Sood had given copy of judgment to him and he submitted copy of judgment in the Secretariat on 25.2.2011. The fake judgment was allegedly reserved on 13.12.2010 and decided on 18.12.2010 by the High Court. The copy of fake judgment was allegedly applied on 22.2.2011 and copy of fake judgment was allegedly delivered on 24.2.2011. 9. The High Court cancelled the bail of Haresh Sood and Kuldeep Rao on 29.6.2011 by taking suo motu action. Haresh Sood was arrested on 29.6.2011. He disclosed that copy of judgment was supplied to Duni Chand also. Kuldeep Rao was again arrested on 2.7.2011. Shivender Batish was released on bail on 11.7.2011, Duni Chand and Dinesh Kapoor were released on bail on 13.7.2011 and Kuldeep Rao was released on bail on 18.7.2011 by the Sessions Judge. The bail application of Haresh Sood was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, on 21.7.2011. 10. It is the case of the investigating agency that first of all Dinesh Kapoor had talked with Haresh Sood and thereafter on 27.10.2010 Dinesh Kapoor, Shivender Batish and Kuldeep Rao had meeting in Hotel Holiday Home, Shimla. Haresh Sood and other accused have taken different stands. Haresh Sood has denied signing of power of attorneys whereas Dinesh Kapoor has taken the stand that power of attorneys were signed and some payment was also made to Haresh Sood. In all ! 3,70,000/- were paid to Haresh Sood in cash or by way of draft. But in the earlier investigation, payment of only ! Haresh Sood has denied signing of power of attorneys whereas Dinesh Kapoor has taken the stand that power of attorneys were signed and some payment was also made to Haresh Sood. In all ! 3,70,000/- were paid to Haresh Sood in cash or by way of draft. But in the earlier investigation, payment of only ! 60,000/- surfaced. The accused are not disclosing the true facts. Shivender Batish handed over original copy of the judgment to police but Duni Chand has not handed over any copy to police whereas it has come in the investigation that copies of the fake judgment were supplied to all of them. 11. The red ink entry in the fake judgment found to be in the hand of Haresh Sood as per F.S.L. report but author of blue ink writing on the fake judgment has not been identified. The fake judgment has not been found to be prepared on lap top, CPU, pen-drive taken from the possession of the accused. The investigation is going on to find out where fake judgment was typed. The accused are not coming with truth and they are misleading so as to mis-direct the investigation. 12. The accused in FIR No. 60 of 2011 who are also accused in CPMT case appeared through their advocates on 29.12.2010, 14.3.2011 and 16.5.2011 in CPMT case in the Court. They were aware of the fake judgment but they did not disclose to the Court judgment dated 18.12.2010 where CPMT case was pending on the aforesaid dates. 13. Shivender Batish, Dinesh Kapoor, Duni Chand Yadav and Kuldeep Rao after releasing on bail and joining investigation have resiled from their earlier stand. The investigating agency in the total facts and circumstances of the case has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to the accused in FIR No. 60 dated 24.5.2011. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 15. Mr. M.S.Chandel, Senior Advocate, led the arguments. He has submitted that the bail applicants are innocent. They engaged Haresh Sood, Advocate, made payment to him and the copy of judgment in question was supplied to the bail applicants by Haresh Sood. The bail applicants acted bonafide but if the advocate has done something wrong then for the wrong act of advocate, the applicants cannot be blamed. The bail applicants remained in custody for sufficient long time. They engaged Haresh Sood, Advocate, made payment to him and the copy of judgment in question was supplied to the bail applicants by Haresh Sood. The bail applicants acted bonafide but if the advocate has done something wrong then for the wrong act of advocate, the applicants cannot be blamed. The bail applicants remained in custody for sufficient long time. The investigating agency got full opportunity to interrogate the applicants. The Sessions Judge has released the applicants on bail. The investigating agency has miserably failed to establish any misconduct of the bail applicants for cancellation of the bail. He has prayed for affirmation of bail orders passed by the Sessions Judge releasing the bail applicants on bail. Mr. Chandel has relied The State through the Delhi Administration vs. Sanjay Gandhi AIR 1978 SC 961, Bhagirathsinh Judeja vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1984 SC 372, Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 2011 SC 312. 16. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Advocate alongwith Ms. Shilpa Sood, Advocate adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Chandel. It has been submitted that the considerations for grant of bail and for cancellation of bail once granted are not identical. Once the bail has been granted then only on post bail misconduct bail can be cancelled. They have relied Ramcharan vs. State of M.P. (2004) 13 SCC 617, Nityanand Rai vs. State of Bihar and another (2005) 4 SCC 178, State of U.P. through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, Manjit Prakash and others vs. Shobha Devi and another 2008 Cri. L.J. 3908, Hazari Lal Das vs. State of West Bengal and another (2009) 10 SCC 652 and Devender Kumar and another vs. State of Haryana and others (2010) 6 SCC 753. It has been submitted that this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 454 of 2011 on 29.6.2011 permitted Dinesh Kapoor to apply to Sessions Court for bail. 17. On behalf of State, learned Advocate General has submitted that there are serious allegations against the accused for preparing fake judgment of this Court in connivance with each other. The bail applicants are accused in CPMT case arising out of FIR No. 140 of 2006. In fact Kuldeep Rao accused even submitted the copy of fake judgment in the Secretariat to get benefit of the fake judgment. The bail applicants are accused in CPMT case arising out of FIR No. 140 of 2006. In fact Kuldeep Rao accused even submitted the copy of fake judgment in the Secretariat to get benefit of the fake judgment. The accused by preparing fake judgment of this Court made an attempt to erode the public confidence in the judicial system and thus tried to tear the faith of the people in the judicial system. He has submitted that the offence of the nature committed by the bail applicants under no circumstance cannot be taken lightly and to restore the confidence of the people in the system, the accused are to be dealt with sternly. The learned Advocate General heavily relied on the judgment dated 29.6.2011 in Cr.MMO Nos. 84 and 85 of 2011. He has submitted that in the teeth of the judgment dated 29.6.2011 the Sessions Judge has committed illegality in releasing the bail applicants on bail. He has submitted that it is not a case of mere cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Judge to the bail applicants but the case before this Court in view of suo motu action is for consideration of legality and propriety of the orders granting bail to the bail applicants. He has prayed for setting aside orders granting bail to the bail applicants by the Sessions Judge. 18. In order to appreciate the contentions on either side, it is relevant to notice how the bail applications have been considered by the Sessions Judge in each case. Cr.MMO No. 127 of 2011: The relevant portion of the order dated 11.7.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge in bail application No.78-S/22 of 2011 is as follows:- “4. The Hon’ble High Court vide judgment and order, dated 29.06.2011 had set-aside the order, dated 28.05.2011 passed by the lower Court. The accused persons Harish Sood and Kuldeep Rao had again been arrested by the police and stood committed to police custody for five days. They have now been committed to judicial custody. The accused person Shivender Batish stood interrogated by the police and he had denied use of his computer/laptop for preparation of the fake judgment. The record revealed that the accused person Harish Sood, Advocate had been paid more than Rs. 3 lacs. He had been contacted by the accused person Shivender Batish and others for quashing one criminal case registered against them. The record revealed that the accused person Harish Sood, Advocate had been paid more than Rs. 3 lacs. He had been contacted by the accused person Shivender Batish and others for quashing one criminal case registered against them. In his interrogation by the police, the accused person Harish Sood, Advocate had admitted receipt of more than Rs. 3 lacs from other accused persons. 5. The copy of the fake judgment in question stood applied copying agency stamp. The accused person Harish Sood had admitted having updated the columns of the stamp applied under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act to the copy of judgment. 6. The accused person Shivender Batish had been in custody for more than a month. Further investigation and subsequent trial is likely to take a long time. No useful purpose shall be served by prolonged detention of the accused person in custody. Bail ought not to be refused as a measure of punishment. There is no chance of abscondance of the accused person as he is permanent resident of Sanjauli, Shimla-6. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the accused person is entitled to bail. The accused person Shivender Batish is ordered to be released on bail on his executing personal and surety bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of J.M.I.C.(1), Shimla, subject to the condition that the accused person shall join further investigation, as and when required and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. The bail application is accordingly allowed.” Cr.MMO No. 128 of 2011: The relevant portion of the order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge in bail application No.83-S/22 of 2011 is as follows:- “4. The Hon’ble High Court vide judgment and order, dated 29.06.2011 had set-aside the order, dated 28.05.2011 passed by the lower Court. The accused persons Harish Sood and Kuldeep Rao had again been arrested by the police and stood committed to police custody for five days. They have now been committed to judicial custody. The accused person Dinesh Kapoor stood interrogated by the police. The record revealed that the accused person Harish Sood, Advocate had been paid more than Rs. 3 lacs. He had been contacted by the accused person Dinesh Kapoor and others for quashing one criminal case registered against them. They have now been committed to judicial custody. The accused person Dinesh Kapoor stood interrogated by the police. The record revealed that the accused person Harish Sood, Advocate had been paid more than Rs. 3 lacs. He had been contacted by the accused person Dinesh Kapoor and others for quashing one criminal case registered against them. In his interrogation by the police, the accused person Harish Sood, Advocate had admitted receipt of more than Rs. 3 lacs from other accused persons. 5. The copy of the fake judgment in question stood applied copying agency stamp. The accused person Harish Sood had admitted having updated the columns of the stamp applied under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act to the copy of judgment. 6. The accused person Dinesh Kapoor had been in custody for more than a month. Further investigation and subsequent trial is likely to take a long time. No useful purpose shall be served by prolonged detention of the accused person in custody. Bail ought not to be refused as a measure of punishment. There is no chance of abscondance of the accused person as he is permanent resident of District Kullu. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the accused person is entitled to bail. The accused person Dinesh Kapoor is ordered to be released on bail on his executing personal and surety bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of J.M.I.C.(1), Shimla, subject to the condition that the accused person shall join further investigation, as and when required and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. The bail application is accordingly allowed.” Cr.MMO No. 129 of 2011: The relevant portion of the order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge in bail application No.84-S/22 of 2011 is as follows:- “4. The Hon’ble High Court vide judgment and order, dated 29.06.2011 had set-aside the order, dated 28.05.2011 passed by the lower Court. The accused persons Harish Sood and Kuldeep Rao had again been arrested by the police and stood committed to police custody for five days. They have now been committed to judicial custody. The accused person Duni Chand stood interrogated by the police. The record revealed that the accused person Harish Sood, Advocate had been paid more than Rs. 3 lacs. The accused persons Harish Sood and Kuldeep Rao had again been arrested by the police and stood committed to police custody for five days. They have now been committed to judicial custody. The accused person Duni Chand stood interrogated by the police. The record revealed that the accused person Harish Sood, Advocate had been paid more than Rs. 3 lacs. He had been contacted by the accused person Duni Chand and others for quashing one criminal case registered against them. In his interrogation by the police, the accused person Harish Sood, Advocate had admitted receipt of more than Rs. 3 lacs from other accused persons.5. The copy of the fake judgment in question stood applied copying agency stamp. The accused person Harish Sood had admitted having updated the columns of the stamp applied under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act to the copy of judgment. 6. The accused person Duni Chand had been in custody for more than a month. Further investigation and subsequent trial is likely to take a long time. No useful purpose shall be served by prolonged detention of the accused person in custody. Bail ought not to be refused as a measure of punishment. There is no chance of abscondance of the accused person as he is permanent resident of District Mandi. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the accused person is entitled to bail. The accused person Duni Chand is ordered to be released on bail on his executing personal and surety bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of J.M.I.C.(1), Shimla, subject to the condition that the accused person shall join further investigation, as and when required and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. The bail application is accordingly allowed.” Cr.MMO No. 130 of 2011: The relevant portion of the order dated 18.7.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge in bail application No.88-S/22 of 2011 is as follows:- “3. The Hon’ble High Court vide judgment and order, dated 29.06.2011 had set-aside the order, dated 28.05.2011 passed by the lower Court. The accused persons Harish Sood and Kuldeep Rao had been ordered to be committed to police custody for five days. The accused person Kuldeep Rao had surrendered before the police on 02.07.2011. On 07.07.2011, the accused person Kuldeep Rao stood committed to judicial custody. The accused persons Harish Sood and Kuldeep Rao had been ordered to be committed to police custody for five days. The accused person Kuldeep Rao had surrendered before the police on 02.07.2011. On 07.07.2011, the accused person Kuldeep Rao stood committed to judicial custody. The learned P.P. had argued that the accused person was party to preparation of fake judgment. In case released on bail, the accused person could tamper with the prosecution evidence. 4. The copy of the fake judgment in question stood applied copying agency stamp. The accused person Harish Sood had admitted having updated the columns of the stamp applied under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act to the copy of judgment. 5. The accused person Kuldeep Rao had been in custody for more than 25 days. Further investigation and subsequent trial is likely to take a long time. No useful purpose shall be served by prolonged detention of the accused person in custody. Bail ought not to be refused as a measure of punishment. There is no chance of abscondance of the accused person as he is permanent resident of District Mandi. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the accused person is entitled to bail. The accused person Kuldeep Rao is ordered to be released on bail on his executing personal and surety bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of J.M.I.C.(1), Shimla, subject to the condition that the accused person shall join further investigation, as and when required and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. The bail application is accordingly allowed.” 19. Haresh Sood and Kuldeep Rao were released on bail on 28.5.2011. This Court on 29.6.2011 in Cr.MMO No. 84 of 2011 and Cr.MMO NO. 85 of 2011 set-aside the order dated 28.5.2011 granting bail to Haresh Sood and Kuldeep Rao and directed that both of them be taken into custody by the police forthwith. In judgment dated 29.6.2011, it has been held as follows:-“31. The learned trial Court should have been alive to the situation that the case involved serious erosion of the credibility of the judicial system and the manner in which it was manipulated. The impact on public interest was plain and evident without launching into a detailed inquiry. 32. Having considered these principles, I advert to the facts of the present case. The impact on public interest was plain and evident without launching into a detailed inquiry. 32. Having considered these principles, I advert to the facts of the present case. The learned trial Court has given a complete go bye to the magnitude and gravity of the offence. The illegality in the order is writ large. Offences against justice could not be treated as routine offences of forgery and cheating and the lackadaisical manner in which the judgment proceeds to dispose of the bail application by pontificating on personal liberty.” “34. Simply saying that the respondents herein would not abscond and were, therefore, entitled to be released on bail, is a perversion of the principle as enunciated by the Supreme Court. The order directing the release of the respondents herein, is perverse, against all settled principles of law and cannot stand judicial scrutiny for a moment. It ignores the enormity and magnitude of an offence and the erosion of the public interest and the credibility of the judiciary by those who were supposed to protect the same. The order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside as being perverse and illegal displaying if anything a total non-application of mind “ 20. In State through Delhi Administration vs. Sanjay Gandhi (supra), it has been held as follows:- “24. Section 439(2) of the Criminal P.C. confers jurisdiction on the High Court or Court of Session to direct that any person who has been released on bail under Chap. XXXIII be arrested and committed to custody. The power to take back in custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection. But the power, though of an extra-ordinary nature, is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases when, by a preponderance of probabilities, it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses. Refusal to exercise that wholesome power in such cases, few though they may be, will reduce it to a dead letter and will suffer the Courts to be silent spectators to the subversion of the judicial process. We might as well wind up the Courts and bolt their doors against all than permit a few to ensure that justice shall not be done.” 21. We might as well wind up the Courts and bolt their doors against all than permit a few to ensure that justice shall not be done.” 21. In Bhagirathsinh Judeja (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. In Dolat Ram (supra) it has been held as follows:- “Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking , the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.” 22. On behalf of the bail applicants, paragraph 122 of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) has been relied. In paragraph 122 of the report, the Supreme Court has culled out factors and parameters which can be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail application. The case on hand is not of anticipatory bail, therefore, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 23. The Supreme Court in Ramcharan (supra) has held as follows:- “ The order of bail can be cancelled on existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances but not on reappreciation of evidence as was done by the High Court. 23. The Supreme Court in Ramcharan (supra) has held as follows:- “ The order of bail can be cancelled on existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances but not on reappreciation of evidence as was done by the High Court. No supervening circumstances have been brought to our notice which may warrant the recalling of the order dated 11.1.2002. The principles that have to be kept in view for recalling the order of bail are set out in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349.” 24. In Nityanand Rai (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the High Court was not justified in considering the application for cancellation of bail as if it was an application for grant of bail. Consideration of an application for grant of bail stands on a different footing than one for cancellation of bail. Grounds for cancellation of bail should be those which arose after the grant of bail and should be referable to the conduct of the accused while on bail, such is not the case made out in application for cancellation of bail. 25. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi (supra) has held as follows:- “They also relied on the decision in Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee v. State of W.B. (2004) 11 SCC 165 where the above principle is reiterated. The decisions in Dolat Ram (1995) 1 SCC 349 and Bhattacharjee (2004) 11 SCC 165 cases relate to applications for cancellation of bail and not appeals against orders granting bail. In an application for cancellation, conduct subsequent to release on bail and the supervening circumstances alone are relevant. But in an appeal against grant of bail, all aspects that were relevant under Section 439 read with Section 437, continue to be relevant. We, however, agree that while considering and deciding the appeals against grant of bail, where the accused has been at large for a considerable time, the post-bail conduct and supervening circumstances will also have to be taken note of. But they are not the only factors to be considered as in the case of applications for cancellation of bail.” 26. We, however, agree that while considering and deciding the appeals against grant of bail, where the accused has been at large for a considerable time, the post-bail conduct and supervening circumstances will also have to be taken note of. But they are not the only factors to be considered as in the case of applications for cancellation of bail.” 26. The Supreme Court in Manjit Prakash (supra) has held that when a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be cancelled. Rejection of bail stands on one footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly resorted to. 27. In Hazarilal Das vs. State of West Bengal (supra), it has been held that the High Court did notice that the considerations which should be in the mind of the court while considering the prayer for grant of bail are not the same for the purpose of cancellation of , yet these considerations were not kept in mind and the order of the Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail was set-aside. 28. The Supreme Court in Devender Kumar (supra) has held as follows:- “Bail had been granted to the appellants by the learned Magistrate, Palwal, on 10.10.2008 and as indicated hereinbefore, there is no allegation that the same had been misused or that any attempt had been made after the appellants were granted bail to recover the articles alleged to have been given to Appellant 1 at the time of marriage with the complainant. The reason given by the High Court for cancellation of the orders, granting bail and directing the arrest of the appellants on the ground that disclosures have been made by the appellants and that their police custody was necessary for recovery of the same, is, in our view, not sufficient for the purpose of cancellation of bail granted earlier.” 29. In Puran vs. Rambilas and another AIR 2001 SC 2023 two appeals were filed against an order dated 24.1.2001, by which the High Court has cancelled bail, which was granted to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge. In Puran vs. Rambilas and another AIR 2001 SC 2023 two appeals were filed against an order dated 24.1.2001, by which the High Court has cancelled bail, which was granted to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court has held that once such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law, interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. An arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial Court has to be corrected. It is to be kept in mind that the concept of setting aside the unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of canceling the bail on the ground that accused has mis-conducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. 30. The Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another AIR 2004 SC 1866 has held as follows:- “.....In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail.” 31. The Supreme Court in Bimla Devi (Smt.) vs. State of Bihar and others (1994) 2 SCC 8 has held that disturbing feature of the case is that though two successive applications of the accused for grant of bail were rejected by the High Court yet the learned Magistrate granted provisional bail. The course adopted by the learned Magistrate is not only contrary to settled principles of judicial discipline and propriety but also contrary to the statutory provisions. 32. The Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another AIR 2005 SC 921 has held as follows:- “19. The course adopted by the learned Magistrate is not only contrary to settled principles of judicial discipline and propriety but also contrary to the statutory provisions. 32. The Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another AIR 2005 SC 921 has held as follows:- “19. The principles of res judicata and such analogous principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the Courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. The findings of a higher Court or a co-ordinate bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining a bail application at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier. In such an event, the courts must give due weight to the grounds which weighed with the former or higher court in rejecting the bail application. Ordinarily, the issues which had been convassed earlier would not be permitted to be re-agitated on the same grounds, as the same it would lead to a speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting. 20. The decisions given by a superior forum, undoubtedly, is binding on the subordinate fora on the same issue even in bail matters unless of course, there is a material change in the fact situation calling for a different view being taken. Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the accused that in view the guaranty conferred on a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is open to the aggrieved person to make successive bail applications even on a ground already rejected by courts earlier including the Apex Court of the country.” 33. Now reverting to the facts of the present case. Now reverting to the facts of the present case. In the fake judgment there are alleged eight petitioners namely (i) Ritika Kapoor D/o Dinesh Kapoor (ii) Aditi Rao D/o Kuldeep Rao (iii) Kritika Yadav D/o Duni Chand Yadav (iv) Ankita Batish D/o Shivender Batish (v) Dinesh Kapoor (vi) Kuldeep Rao (vii) Duni Chand Yadav and (viii) Shivender Batish. The main argument on behalf of the bail applicants is that they are innocent, nothing has been done by them which can be said to be an offence. They simply engaged Haresh Sood as an advocate for quashing FIR No. 140 of 2006 registered at Police Station, Boileauganj. They paid fee to him. Haresh Sood lateron told them about the judgment dated 18.12.2010 and quashing of case against the bail applicants . There was no reason to disbelieve Haresh Sood. The bail applicants were not aware nor in any way connected with the preparation of judgment dated 18.12.2010. 34. This Court has taken suo motu action against the bail granting orders to the bail applicants by the Sessions Judge. The legality and propriety of the bail orders are under scrutiny before this Court. It is not a case where the State has approached this Court for cancellation of bail on the basis of post bail conduct of the bail applicants. In Puran (supra), the Supreme Court has held that ground for cancellation of bail would be where bail has been granted ignoring material evidence and perverse order granting bail has been passed in a heinous crime . It has also been held that an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial Court has to be corrected. The concept of setting aside the unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself. 35. In State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, the Supreme Court has held that in an appeal against grant of bail, all aspects that were relevant under Section 439 read with Section 437, continue to be relevant. This Court under suo motu powers is considering the legality and propriety of the bail granting orders of Sessions Judge in favour of the bail applicants. This Court under suo motu powers is considering the legality and propriety of the bail granting orders of Sessions Judge in favour of the bail applicants. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the bail applicants that since post bail misconduct of the bail applicants is not involved in the present case, therefore, the bail granted to the bail applicants by the Sessions Judge cannot be set aside by this Court while exercising suo motu power. 36. The case is at the investigation stage, it is for the trial Court to go deep into the matter during trial. The position at this stage is that the bail applicants and Haresh Sood have not taken consistent stand as per investigation agency. There is no denial of the fact that judgment dated 18.12.2010 in Cr.MMO No. 179 of 2010 is fake judgment inasmuch as according to the investigating agency, Cr.MMO No. 179 of 2010 in the High Court is registered in the name of Gian Chand Sood vs. Shivani and not in the name of Ritika Kapoor and others vs. State of H.P. and others. The typewriter, computer over which the fake judgment has been typed has not been recovered as yet nor bail applicants and Haresh Sood are disclosing and co-operating where the fake judgment dated 18.12.2010 was typed. The investigating agency has taken the stand that bail applicants and Haresh Sood are misleading the investigating agency so as to mis-direct the investigation. 37. It has come during investigation that bail applicants have signed the power of attorneys in favour of Haresh Sood, obviously as per them for filing petition in the High Court for quashing FIR No. 140 of 2006. In the fake judgment not only the bail applicants but their respective daughters are also petitioners, how names of their daughters have been included as petitioners in the fake judgment that has not been explained by the bail applicants till now. It is not the stand of bail applicants that even their daughters also signed power of attorneys in favour of Haresh Sood for quashing FIR No. 140 of 2006. 38.The fake judgment in Cr.MMO No. 179 of 2010 was given on 18.12.2010, thereafter, the case arising out of FIR No. 140 of 2006 was taken up by the trial Court on 29.12.2010, 14.3.2011 and 16.5.2011. The copy of fake judgment was available on 24/25.2.2011. 38.The fake judgment in Cr.MMO No. 179 of 2010 was given on 18.12.2010, thereafter, the case arising out of FIR No. 140 of 2006 was taken up by the trial Court on 29.12.2010, 14.3.2011 and 16.5.2011. The copy of fake judgment was available on 24/25.2.2011. In normal circumstance on the first available opportunity the bail applicants were expected to submit to the trial court copy of judgment dated 18.12.2010 and to bring to the notice of the trial court that FIR No. 140 of 2006 as against them has been quashed and there is no question of proceeding against them. The copy of judgment dated 18.12.2010 was not submitted in the trial court by the bail applicants. The only reason given at the time of hearing of the present petitions for not submitting copy of judgment in the trial arising out of FIR No. 140 of 2006 was that the bail applicants were advised by their advocate to keep low, silent so that the State may not approach the superior court against the judgment dated 18.12.2010. This argument is naive and does not sound to logic. Kuldeep Rao submitted the copy of judgment dated 18.12.2010 in the Secretariat on 25.2.2011 in order to take benefit of the judgment. In any case till registration of the case on 24.5.2011 already more than five months were over from the date of judgment dated 18.12.2010 but still copy of judgment dated 18.12.2010 was not submitted in trial arising out of FIR No. 140 of 2006. This prima facie is not in consonance with the innocence of the bail applicants in the present case, rather it is indicative of conspiracy of preparing fake judgment. There are many loose ends which are required to be tied in further investigation. 39. The Sessions Judge has not appreciated that the bail applicants are not involved in a routine type of case. The bail applicants tried to erode the fabric of judicial system by fabricating fake judgment of the High Court. The Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the seriousness of the case. He has simply observed that the bail applicants are in custody for some time, the trial will take long time and no purpose will be served by prolonged detention of the bail applicants in custody when there is no chance of abscondance of the bail applicants. The Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the seriousness of the case. He has simply observed that the bail applicants are in custody for some time, the trial will take long time and no purpose will be served by prolonged detention of the bail applicants in custody when there is no chance of abscondance of the bail applicants. In AIR 2004 SC 1866 Supreme Court has held accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in that case) by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with period of incarceration. 40. The Supreme Court in Masroor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2009) 14 SCC 286 has held that there is no denying the fact that the liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the courts. Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation. The valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general has to be balanced. Liberty of a person accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case. It is possible that in a given situation, the collective interest of the community may outweigh the right of personal liberty of the individual concerned. 41. The Sessions Judge has noticed the judgment dated 29.6.2011 of this Court in the bail orders but he has ignored the observations of this Court that case involved serious erosion of the credibility of the judicial system and the manner in which it was manipulated. Offences against justice could not be treated as routine offences of forgery and cheating and the lackadaisical manner in which the judgment proceeds to dispose of the bail applications by pontificating on personal liberty. In the judgment dated 29.6.2011 when the bail was granted by the Magistrate, this Court has also observed that the bail granting order has ignored enormity and magnitude of an offence and the erosion of the public interest and the credibility of the judiciary by those who were supposed to protect the same. In the judgment dated 29.6.2011 when the bail was granted by the Magistrate, this Court has also observed that the bail granting order has ignored enormity and magnitude of an offence and the erosion of the public interest and the credibility of the judiciary by those who were supposed to protect the same. In para 34 of the judgment dated 29.6.2011 it has been observed that the respondents would not abscond and were, therefore, entitled to be released on bail, is a perversion of the principle as enunciated by the Supreme Court. 42. In Bimla Devi (supra) when the bail was refused on two occasions by the High Court but provisional bail was granted by the Magistrate, the Supreme Court has held that the course adopted by the learned Magistrate is not only contrary to settled principles of judicial discipline and propriety but also contrary to the statutory provisions. In AIR 2005 SC 921 the Supreme Court has held that principles of res judicata and such analogous principles are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, still the courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. The findings of a higher Court or a co-ordinate bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining a bail application at a later stage when the same has been rejected earlier. 43. The bail applications of Haresh Sood and Kuldeep Rao were allowed by the trial Magistrate on 28.5.2011, this Court took suo motu action and on 29.6.2011 set-aside the bail granting order dated 28.5.2011 of Haresh Sood and Kuldeep Rao. The reasons assigned by the Sessions Judge in granting bail to Shivender Batish, Dinesh Kapoor and Duni Chand Yadav are not in substance different from the reasons for granting bail to Kuldeep Rao. The Sessions Judge has committed impropriety in granting bail to bail applicants in the presence of observations and the seriousness of the case noticed by this Court in the judgment dated 29.6.2011. 44. In view of above discussion, Cr.MMO Nos. 127, 128, 129 and 130 of 2011 are allowed and the orders dated 11.7.2011, 13.7.2011, 13.7.2011 and 18.7.2011 passed by Sessions Judge in bail applications No.78-S/22 of 2011, 83-S/22 of 2011, 84-S/22 of 2011 and 88-S/22 of 2011 respectively are set-aside. Respondent No.1 in each Cr.MMO Nos. 44. In view of above discussion, Cr.MMO Nos. 127, 128, 129 and 130 of 2011 are allowed and the orders dated 11.7.2011, 13.7.2011, 13.7.2011 and 18.7.2011 passed by Sessions Judge in bail applications No.78-S/22 of 2011, 83-S/22 of 2011, 84-S/22 of 2011 and 88-S/22 of 2011 respectively are set-aside. Respondent No.1 in each Cr.MMO Nos. 127, 128, 129 and 130 of 2011 is directed to surrender to the police immediately. All the petitions stand disposed of. 45. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of these petitions only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ************************************************************************