ORDER : Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. What has emerged from the records of this case and connected records produced before this Court, in the light of the orders, dated 06.06.2016 and 07.06.2016, is ominous and unless immediate stringent steps are taken to overcome the situation, the consequences may be disastrous. Fraud has been played upon this Court. I will take note of the developments in the present case, as elaborately recorded in the orders, dated 06.06.2016 and 07.06.2016, passed in the present case, and the report submitted by the learned Registrar (vigilance) of this Court, in the light of the said orders in view of the nature of order which I intend to pass today. 2. Today also, learned Counsel, Mr. Jay Kumar (AOR No. 01047) and Mr. Ran Vijay Kumar Singh (AOR No. 04609) are absent for obvious reasons. From the previous orders passed in this case, it appears that after this Court noticed the fraud committed for securing regular bail of the petitioner by filing the present application, learned Advocates have intentionally absented themselves. 3. In the light of this Court's order, dated 07.06.2016, and the oral observations made by me today, Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna, is personally present. 4. I have heard Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation and Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Upon a request made by this Court, Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General, has also appeared and has extended his valuable assistance. 5. The petitioner is a named accused in Beur Police Station Case No. 155 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. There are seven persons named in the First Information Report viz. (i) Nagina Rai, (ii) Munchun Kumar Rai (petitioner), (iii) Pandit Ji @ Ajay Yadav, (iv) Ganesh Kumar (v) Munna Kumar (vi) Raghunath Rai and (vii) Gudia Devi. There is a statement on behalf of the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the application that prior to filing of the present case, he had not approached this Court for grant of regular bail. 6. There is a statement on behalf of the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the application that prior to filing of the present case, he had not approached this Court for grant of regular bail. 6. The affidavit of the application has been sworn by one Akhlesh Ranjan, son of Surendra Kumar Ray, resident of village Badhai Tola, Police Station Masaurhi, District Patna, wherein he has described himself to be the brother-in-law of the petitioner. However, from the records, it is evident that before lodging the present application for regular bail, the petitioner had filed Criminal Misc. No. 39301 of 2014, which was rejected by this Court, by an order, dated 29.10.2015. This fact, the petitioner concealed. This is one aspect of the matter. 7. On perusal of this Court's orders and after going through the records of the present case and connected cases, in my opinion, their remains no iota of doubt that the Xerox copy of the certified copy of the First Information Report annexed with the application is forged and fabricated one. Secondly, when this application was taken up by this Court on 06.06.2016, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jay Kumar, produced before this Court web-copies of three orders. Out of the three orders, the first two orders (both are Order No. 3) are shown to have been passed on 25.02.2016, in Criminal Misc. No. 4198 of 2016 and the third is dated 10.08.2015, passed in Criminal Misc. No. 29733 of 2015, in order to make out a case that the co-accused persons, namely, Munna Kumar, Ganesh Kumar and Nagina Rai, have been granted the privilege of regular bail and, therefore, the petitioner should also be granted the same privilege, by giving him similar treatment. 8. On 07.06.2016, taking into account the entire materials on record, this Court elaborately dealt with the manner in which an attempt had been made to play fraud upon this Court, relevant portion of which reads thus:- “First, the allegation in the fardbeyan on the basis of which the FIR has been instituted has been deliberately interpolated. The allegation that the petitioner opened fire causing injury in the temple of the deceased has been omitted in order to impress the Court that he is not the assailant. Second, an attempt has been made by Mr. The allegation that the petitioner opened fire causing injury in the temple of the deceased has been omitted in order to impress the Court that he is not the assailant. Second, an attempt has been made by Mr. Jay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner by producing a forged web copy of the order dated 25.02.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4198 of 2016 by a coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava) to show that the co-accused Munna Kumar having identical allegation has already been granted bail by a Bench of this Court. Let it be noted that Cr. Misc. No. 4198 of 2016 was filed by one Nagina Rai and not Munna Kumar. The record of Cr. Misc. No. 4198 of 2016 would indicate that Nagina Rai has been granted bail by a Bench of this Court (Coram - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava) on 25.02.2016 Third, from perusal of the record of Cr. Misc. No. 4198 of 2016, it would be apparent that the FIR annexed to that case was also not at all authenticated. The specific part of the FIR where the allegation against Nagina Rai was made has also been omitted in the FIR annexed to Cr.Misc. No. 4198 of 2016. Fourth, from the web copy of the order dated 29.10.2015 obtained from the National Informatics Centre (NIC), Patna High Court and produced by the Court Master would indicate that the prayer for bail of the petitioner of the present case Munchun Kumar Rai @ Munchun Kumar and co-accused Nagina Rai and Munna Kumar was rejected by a common order passed by a Bench of this Court on 29.10.2015 (Coram - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh). Fifth, a wrong submission has been made in paragraph 2 of the bail application of the petitioner as also in paragraph 2 of the bail application of the co-accused Nagina Rai that the petitioner has never moved earlier before this Court for grant of bail in connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 155 of 2013. The instant application has been filed before this Court on 25th April, 2016 whereas the bail application of the aforesaid Nagina Rai was filed before this Court on 25th January, 2016. Their applications were already rejected by this Court earlier vide order dated 29th October, 2015. Sixth, from perusal of the order dated 10.08.2015 passed in Cr.Misc. The instant application has been filed before this Court on 25th April, 2016 whereas the bail application of the aforesaid Nagina Rai was filed before this Court on 25th January, 2016. Their applications were already rejected by this Court earlier vide order dated 29th October, 2015. Sixth, from perusal of the order dated 10.08.2015 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 29733 of 2015, it would appear that the co-accused of this case, namely, Ganesh Kumar was granted bail by a Bench of this Court (Coram - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha). The subsequent order dated 29.09.2015 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 29733 of 2015 would indicate that the Bench has issued notice for cancellation of bail of the accused Ganesh Kumar. A perusal of the record of Cr.Misc. No.29733 of 2015 would further indicate that a wrong submission was made on oath in paragraph 2 of the application wherein it was stated that the petitioner had not moved before this Court on earlier occasion either for his anticipatory bail or bail or for any other relief in that case whereas fact of the matter is that the prayer for bail of the accused Ganesh Kumar was already rejected by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2014 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 25572 of 2014 (Coram - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi). Seventh, the Advocate, who had appeared before the Court yesterday, is conspicuous by his absence today. The Advocate on Record had neither appeared yesterday nor is in attendance before the Court today. The aforesaid facts and circumstances demonstrate clearly and convincingly that the petitioner and other co-accused persons of the case have certainly set in motion in conscionable scheme duly calculated to interfere with the judicial system ability to deal with the matter in a fair and impartial manner. The terrible and indisputable acts of omissions and commission noted above is an open threat to the criminal justice system. The cheaters and unscrupulous persons involved in the case must be taken to task. They should not be allowed to prosper. An immediate check on such unscrupulous litigant and all others involved in the crime needs to be taken.” 9. After having recorded as above, this Court directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to submit a report. The cheaters and unscrupulous persons involved in the case must be taken to task. They should not be allowed to prosper. An immediate check on such unscrupulous litigant and all others involved in the crime needs to be taken.” 9. After having recorded as above, this Court directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to submit a report. The Registrar (Vigilance) has submitted a report with reference to all bail applications filed in this Court, arising out of Beur Police Station Case No. 155 of 2013. The report speaks for itself. However, for the benefit of easy reference, the entire report is being re-produced herein below:- “Detailed Report in obedience to Hon'ble Court’s Order dated 07.06.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 18211/16 In the light of the aforesaid order a chart has been obtained from the N.I.C. relating to the bail petitions, filed on behalf of the accused persons of Beur P.S. Case No. 155/2013. From perusal of F.I.R of Beur P.S. Case No. 155/2013, it appears that seven persons were made accused in this case, namely, (i) Nagina Rai (ii) Munchun Kumar Rai (iii) Pandit Jee @ Ajay Yadav (iv) Ganesh Kumar (v) Munna Kumar (vi) Raghunath Rai and (vii) Gudia Devi. In this regard as per computerized chart, it reveals that the following cases have been filed before this Hon'ble Court in connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 155/2013 - (1) Cr. Misc. No. 15551/14 - An anticipatory bail petition of accused Nagina Rai has been rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava on 23.12.2014. (Record kept below). (2) Cr. Misc. No. 22655/2015, Cr. Misc. No. 39301/2015 and Cr. Misc. No. 30819/2015 - Regular bail petitions of the accused Nagina Rai, Munchun Kumar Rai @ Munchun Kumar and Munna Kumar Rai were filed separately which were rejected by common order dated 29.10.2015 by the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh. (Record kept below). (3) Cr. Misc. No. 25572/2014 - The Regular bail petition of Ganesh Kumar @ Ganesh Rai was filed which was rejected by the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi vide order dated 12.09.2014. (Record kept below). (4) Cr. Misc. No. 5544/2015 - A Regular bail petition was filed on behalf of Ajay Yadav @ Pandit Ji which was allowed by the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava vide order dated 27.04.2015 (Record kept below). (5) Cr. Misc. No. 22362 and Cr. Misc. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi vide order dated 12.09.2014. (Record kept below). (4) Cr. Misc. No. 5544/2015 - A Regular bail petition was filed on behalf of Ajay Yadav @ Pandit Ji which was allowed by the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava vide order dated 27.04.2015 (Record kept below). (5) Cr. Misc. No. 22362 and Cr. Misc. No. 27076/2014 -Anticipatory bail petitions on behalf of Gudiya Devi and Munchun Kumar Rai @ Munchun Rai were filed separately which were heard together and disposed of by common order dated 02.12.2014 passed by the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Akhilesh Chandra. From Perusal of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Court dated 02.12.2014 it appears that prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner namely Munchun Kumar Rai (Cr. Misc. No. 27076/2014) was rejected while the prayer of Gudiya Devi(Cr. Misc. No. 22362) was allowed. (6) Cr. Misc. No. 29733/2015 - A regular bail petition on behalf of Ganesh Kumar was filed which was allowed by the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha vide order dated 10.08.2015. It is worth to mention that the same petitioner had moved earlier for grant of regular bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 25572/2014 (mentioned above at Sl. No. 3) which was rejected vide Hon'ble Court’s order dated 12.09.2014 but this fact was concealed in the present case i.e. Cr. Misc. No. 29733/2015. As soon as the fact of concealment regarding earlier moved came into the knowledge of Hon'ble Court, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 29.09.2015 has been pleased to order to issue notice to the petitioner as to why his bail bonds be not cancelled on the ground of concealment of facts in the bail petition. At present appearance of the petitioner is awaited in the matter. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner had moved Cr. Misc. No. 25572/2014 in connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 155/2013 while he filed the subsequent petitioner bearing Cr. Misc. No. 29733/2015 in connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 15/2013 and it was accordingly stamp reported in Beur P.S. Case No. 15/2013 which is evident from the duplicate computer page (Kept at Flag'X' with the petition). Misc. No. 25572/2014 in connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 155/2013 while he filed the subsequent petitioner bearing Cr. Misc. No. 29733/2015 in connection with Beur P.S. Case No. 15/2013 and it was accordingly stamp reported in Beur P.S. Case No. 15/2013 which is evident from the duplicate computer page (Kept at Flag'X' with the petition). It also appears that in order to escape from 'Tied Up Matter', the upper part of the stamp reporting page (Kept at Flag 'Y') the P.S. Case No. has been torn and the second as well as the last page (where P.S. Case No. is mentioned) have been replaced with the desired P.S. Case no. i.e. Beur P.S. Case no. 155/2013 and the copy of F.I.R, Fardbyan and also the Impugned order have been replaced in order to obtain bail by playing fraud. (7). Cr. Misc. No. 4198/2016 - A regular bail petition has been filed on behalf of Nagina Rai in which bail has been granted vide order dated 25.06.2016 passed by the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava. From perusal of the record it appears that stamp reporting was done in Beur P.S. Case No. 55/2013 as is evident from the duplicate stamp reporting page, kept at Flag 'A' (taken out from computer today) with the petition, but the stamp reporting page attached with the petition appears to be fake one (kept at Flag 'B') in which the P.S. Case No. and the name of earlier moved accused are missing. Similarly all the pages of the petition, containing P.S. Case no., copy of F.I.R., Fardbyan and the Impugned order appear to be replaced with Beur P.S. Case No. 155/2013. The instant petition has been filed by Sri Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate (A.O.R. No. 02101, Mob:- 9199649522, 9835087271). (8). Cr. Misc. Similarly all the pages of the petition, containing P.S. Case no., copy of F.I.R., Fardbyan and the Impugned order appear to be replaced with Beur P.S. Case No. 155/2013. The instant petition has been filed by Sri Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate (A.O.R. No. 02101, Mob:- 9199649522, 9835087271). (8). Cr. Misc. No. 18211/ 2016 (the present listed case) - A regular bail petition has been filed on behalf of Munchun Kumar Rai @ Munchun Kumar initially in Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 155/2013 as evident from duplicate stamp reporting format, kept at Flag 'M', obtained today for verification of the fact and stamp reporting of this instant case was also made in Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 155/2013 but it appears just after institution of the present Case, alteration appears to have been made in the format of stamp reporting page, kept at Flag 'T', by tearing the upper side of the format in order to conceal the original P.S. Case No. under which the petition was filed initially which was Beur P.S. Case No. 155/2013. Further all the pages containing P.S. Case No. in the petition, the copy of F.I.R., Fardbyan as well as the Impugned order have been replaced to conceal the vital facts i.e. the changing of Beur P.S. Case No. 155/2013 from Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 155/2013. Perhaps the alteration/replacement of Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 155/2013 has been made to escape from Tied Up matter as the bail petition of the petitioner was earlier rejected in Beur P.S. Case No. 155/2013 in Cr. Misc. No. 39301/2015 (already stated above at Sl. No. 2) Further it is worth to point out that - a token No. 18298/2016, on behalf of the same petitioner namely Munchun Kumar Rai was also filed for grant of Regular bail on 08.03.2016 which was defective filing but ld. concerned counsel did not prefer to remove the defect as pointed out by the Criminal Stamp reporter. In the said token No., Beur P.S. Case No. 55/2013 was mentioned in Para 1 of the petition, in the copy of F.I.R as well as in the Impugned order enclosed with the said petition. concerned counsel did not prefer to remove the defect as pointed out by the Criminal Stamp reporter. In the said token No., Beur P.S. Case No. 55/2013 was mentioned in Para 1 of the petition, in the copy of F.I.R as well as in the Impugned order enclosed with the said petition. In Para No. 2 of the said petition there is suppression of facts regarding earlier moved as it has been stated that the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble Court on any earlier occasion for his anticipatory bail or bail or for any other relief in this case. The instant petition was also filed by the same advocate Sri Dhananjay Kumar Pandey who has filed Cr. Misc. No. 4198/2016 and obtained bail of the petitioner namely Nagina Rai by manipulation and fraud. All the above mentioned H.C. record i.e. Cr. Misc. No. 15551/2014, 22655/2015, 39301/2015, 30819/2015, 25572/2014, 5544/2015, 22362/2014, 27076/2014, 29733/2015, 4198/2016 and petition of Token no. 18298/2016 are kept with the instant Cr. Misc. No. 18211/2016 listed before the Hon'ble Bench. The above report is humbly submitted before your Lordship for kind perusal and necessary orders.” 10. It transpires from the report of the Registrar (Vigilance), wherein the learned Registrar (Vigilance) has dealt with the present case, at serial no. 8, that an application was earlier filed for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Masaurhi Police Station Case No. 155 of 2013. This is to be noted that the present case arises out of Beur Police Station Case No. 155 of 20-13. On the basis of the duplicate stamp reporting format, which has been kept at Flag-'M', the learned Registrar (Vigilance) has recorded that stamp reporting of the instant case was done in Masaurhi Police Station Case No. 155 of 2013, but just after institution of the present application, alteration appeared to have been made in the format of stamp reporting page, copy at Flag-'T', by tearing off the upper side of the format in order to conceal the original Police Station Case Number, under which the petition was filed initially. It has also been reported that all pages containing Police Station Case Number in the petition, copy of the First Information Report, fardbayan as well as the impugned order has been replaced to conceal the crucial facts that this case arose out of Beur Police Station Case No. 155 of 2013 at the stage of stamp reporting. 11. I must point out at this stage that once an application for grant of bail is filed, a data is generated as to whether any application on behalf of any of the accused persons named in the First Information Report, arising out of the same Police Station Case, was filed or not and if filed, with what result. Apparently, for the purpose of hoodwinking this Court, the petitioner filed his application, referring to Masaurhi Police Station Case No. 155 of 2013 so that no data could be generated with respect to the case arising out of Beur Police Station Case No. 155 of 2013. There being statement in paragraph 2 of the application that the petitioner had not earlier moved for grant of regular bail, coupled with the fact that the concerned format of stamp reporting did not show the details of cases earlier filed, this Court would have readily believed that the petitioner had not earlier approached this Court for grant of bail. The fraud committed for seeking bail has been dealt elaborately in this Court's orders, dated 06.06.2016 and 07.06.2016, passed in this case and the report submitted by the learned Registrar (Vigilance). It was just a matter of chance that the Court could detect fraud being played upon the Court by or on behalf of a person, seeking regular bail, by forging crucial documents like First Information Report, orders of this Court and by making false statements. The conduct of learned Counsel Mr. Jay Kumar, who had initially appeared in this case and Mr. Ran Vijay Kumar Singh, the Advocate-on-Record, gives this Court a reason to form a prima facie opinion that there is strong possibility of themselves having indulged in such fraudulent act. There could be numerous instances of similar nature, which might have gone unnoticed which needs to be enquired into, as there appears to be a deep-rooted conspiracy at larger scale. A full proof system will have to be developed so that the stream of justice is not polluted and is kept pure. There could be numerous instances of similar nature, which might have gone unnoticed which needs to be enquired into, as there appears to be a deep-rooted conspiracy at larger scale. A full proof system will have to be developed so that the stream of justice is not polluted and is kept pure. The extreme situation compels the Courts to pass befitting orders. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, it is deemed fit to pass orders to minimise the scope of fraud, in such matters. 12. In view of the exceptional circumstance, as has been noted above and in view of urgency of the matter, I make the following order for the present:- (i) The Registrar (Vigilance) is directed to lodge a First Information Report with the Central Bureau of Investigation, A.C.B., Patna, today itself, based on the orders of this Court, dated 06.06.2016 and 07.06.2016, and the report, dated 07.06.2016, submitted by him in compliance of those orders. The First Information Report must be registered today itself. (ii) It will be open to the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate as to whether there is a large scale conspiracy and by playing fraud upon the Court, on the basis of forged documents, any person/persons have been released from the judicial custody in any manner whatsoever or such attempts have been made. (iii) The Registrar (Vigilance) will be required to extend all necessary assistance to the Central Bureau of Investigation in this regard. He shall be further required to supply to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna, authenticated copies of the records of the present case and other materials as and when required. (iv) The Advocate-on-Record status of learned Counsel, Mr. Jay Kumar (AOR NO. 01047) and Mr. Ran Vijay Kumar Singh (AOR No. 04609) shall remain under suspended animation, till further orders. (v) It has been reported to me that their enrolment numbers with the State Bar Council are 9430 of 1996 and 585 of 1990 respectively. (iv) The Advocate-on-Record status of learned Counsel, Mr. Jay Kumar (AOR NO. 01047) and Mr. Ran Vijay Kumar Singh (AOR No. 04609) shall remain under suspended animation, till further orders. (v) It has been reported to me that their enrolment numbers with the State Bar Council are 9430 of 1996 and 585 of 1990 respectively. I would have issued show cause notices to them in order to have their explanation before passing any order against them, but since they have absented themselves from the Court's proceedings deliberately, I direct that their licenses to practise as Advocates shall also remain under suspension, till further orders. (vi) It will be open to the State Bar Council to take disciplinary action against the above mentioned lawyers. (vii) After having seen the report submitted by the learned Registrar (Vigilance), I am of the prima facie view that the parties get a chance to commit fraud after they take their applications back in the name of removal of defect(s) after initial stamp reporting. To stop that, I direct that from today itself, no copy of bail application shall be returned after stamp reporting and the defect(s), if any, shall have to be removed by the respective learned Counsel in the Registry itself, which shall be done under the surveillance of CCTV. (viii) All the applications for grant of anticipatory bail or regular bail shall, henceforth, be filed along with the certified copy of the respective First Information Report. This will be subject to decision, if any, taken in future by High Court on the question of necessary amendments in the Patna High Court Rules. For the said purpose, let this order be placed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice. (ix) It is further directed that henceforth, it will be the responsibility of learned Advocate-on-Record, before filing an application for anticipatory bail or regular bail, to cross-check and verify the correctness of statement, if any, that prior to filing of the said application, the petitioner had not filed any such application before this Court, on the basis of the information available on the website of this Court or otherwise. (x) In my view, this evil could be, to some extent, overcome by maintaining computerized data of the First Information Reports. Mr. (x) In my view, this evil could be, to some extent, overcome by maintaining computerized data of the First Information Reports. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General, on the instructions from the Inspector General of Police (Modernization), has submitted that there is no possibility of computerisation at the level of Police Stations in near future and a scheme under “Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System” is underway which is likely to take about two years. However, keeping in view the urgency of the matter, in order to explore possibilities of quick solution, I direct the Inspector General of Police (Modernization), Patna, to be present personally in Court on 09th June, 2016. 13. Place this matter, under the same heading, on 09th June, 2016. 14. Let this order be circulated in the Registry of this Court for its strict compliance. 15. Let this order be communicated to Mr. Jay Kumar and Mr. Ran Vijay Kumar Singh, learned Advocates, on their email-Id, if any, or through any other electronic mode, forthwith. 16. Let a copy of this order be served on the Office of the learned Advocate General, Bihar, who is, at present, Ex-Officio Chairman of the Bihar State Bar Council. 17. The personal appearance of Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna, stands dispensed with.