@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S.P. Singh, J.@mdashThe petitioner, who is the informant, in Begusarai Mufassil P.S. Case No. 315 of 2006 in a case u/s 364A of the Penal Code has preferred the instant application for cancellation of bail granted to Opposite Party No. 2 Vijay Kumar Mandal by this court by order dated 26.7.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 on various grounds namely:-(i) suppression of fact that he has moved the High Court earlier, (it) annexing a forged certified copy of impugned order dated 4.1.2007 passed in B.A. No. 2130 of 2006 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai changing its material contents from its original, (iii) for causing interpolation in the F.I.R. as well as in paragraph 1 and prayer portion in Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007. In course of this proceeding it subsequently transpired that the name of lawyer, his Advocate''s Clerk who identified the deponent as well as the person swearing affidavit are all fake and all are by impersonation. This court by order dated 12.9.2007 had issued notice to Opposite Party No. 2 to show cause as to why bail granted to him be not cancelled.
2. Mr. Shraddhanand Paswan; Advocate appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 and prayed for adjournment to file reply. It appears that Opposite Party No. 2 subsequently withdrew the Vakalatnama given in favour of Mr. Shraddhanand Paswan, Advocate.
3. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned Senior Counsel who was present in the court offered to appear in this case as amicus curiae.
4. This court by order dated 24.1.2008 passed a detailed order enumerating the forgery committed by Opposite Party No. 2 in connivance with others. This court also directed that a copy of the order be served on Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate who appeared in Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007. By the same order notice was also issued to one Yogendra Prasad Singh who had sworn affidavit in Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 as well as in other two cases.
5. To utter dismay it has been reported that there is no Advocate by the name of Mr. Vinod Kumar as detailed in the Vakalatnama. On enquiry it also transpired that Advocate''s Clerk R.P. Singh bearing registration no. 7283/07 who identified the alleged deponent Yogendra Prasad Singh was also a fake person. In this respect a request was made to the Bar Council also to find the whereabout of the aforesaid Mr. Vinod Kumar.
6. Mr. Sharddhanand Paswan. Advocate who initially appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 stated that latter had come with one Rajiv, a private tutor living in Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna as well as with a young boy. He stated that when he suggested Opposite Party No. 2 Vijay Kumar Mandal to surrender in view of the order of this court he and his companion Rajiv took back the file from him and quickly left his office. He stated that aforesaid Rajiv quite often comes near the canteen of Legal Aid Committee of this court.
7. Mr. Yogendra Prasad Singh who allegedly had sworn affidavit in Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 appeared through his counsel Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur. He stated that though he had sworn affidavit in Criminal Misc. Nos. 14692 of 2007 and 34389 of 2007, he had not sworn affidavit in Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007. He stated that a fake person has used his name and had put a forged signature of his. He further stated that one Rajendra Prasad Singh an employee of the T.P.S. College, Patna was also associated in filing of the aforesaid two previous cases on behalf of Vijay Kumar Mandal (Opposite Party No. 2).
8. Mr. Yogendra Prasad Singh filed a supplementary affidavit which made startling disclosure regarding the persons involved in filing the Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007. This affidavit would go a long way in catching the main culprits. In his affidavit he has further stated that one (i) Kapildeo Singh @ Kapildeo Mahto of Village-Garha Makwa, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Begusarai; (ii) Mithilesh Kumar son of late Janardan Singh of Viltage-Chochahi Panchayat-Belsandi, P.S. Bibhutipur, District Samastipur, (iii) Mr. Sabal Jha, Advocate, and (iv) Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Clerk are involved in filing the aforesaid case in which forgery has been committed.
9. It would be useful to reproduce paragraphs 3(i) to 3(iv) of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of Yogendra Prasad Singh:-
"3(i). One Mr. Kapildeo Singh @ Kapildeo Mahto of Village-Garha Makwa, Police Station-Bhagwanpur, District Begusarai and one Mithilesh Kumar son of late Janardan Singh of Village-Chochahi, Panchayat-Belsandi, Police Station-Bibhutipur, District Samastipur have contacted Opposite Party No. 2 and thereafter, at the instance of the aforesaid persons, one Mr. Sabal Jha, the learned Advocate and one Sri Sanjay Kumar, the Advocate Clerk got the bail application typed by a typist namely Ajay Kumar who used to sit on the road on the eastern gate of this Hon''ble Court which goes towards the Bar Council Building.
3(ii). The said Mithilesh Kumar, son of late Janardan Singh impersonated the deponent and signed on the affidavit of the third bail petition i. e. Cr. Misc. No. 29908/07.
3(iii). The case was argued by Sri Sabal Jha. learned Advocate of this Hon''ble Court who used to sit in the Advocate Association on the Verandah which is situated in front of the main bath room of the Advocate Association and before the Library Hall and similarly, Sri Sanjay Kumar, works as his Munshi (Advocate Clerk) but the deponent is not of the knowledge that he is a registered clerk of Sri Sabal Jha, Advocate or not.
If the aforesaid persons are interrogated thoroughly they will disclose the entire thing as to how they used to manufacture those papers and how they have cheated several innocent lawyers of this Hon''ble Court as well as to the entire judicial system.
3(iv). The deponent has also learnt that the said Kapildeo Singh @ Kapildeo Mahto had taken a contract for arranging the bail on a consideration of Rs. Two lacs and even the Vakalatnama which was used in the said Cr. Misc. No. 29908/07 is not genuine and as the deponent has learnt that the said Mithilesh Kumar has put his thumb impression even on the Vakalatnama in collusion with the said Kapildeo Singh @ Kapildeo Mahto and the stamp of Jail etc. were also affixed by said Kapildeo Singh and the Vakalatnama was manufactured in presence and collusion with all the aforesaid persons who have been named above."
10. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Yogendra Prasad Singh submits that there is a group which is committing such acts since long. He submitted that in order to curb such activities a preliminary enquiry may be directed to be made by the C.B.I. or by the Intelligence Bureau so that all so involved be exposed and punished in order to put an end to such nefarious activities. He further submits that on account of misdeeds of a few, the good name of law profession comes in jeopardy and lawyers who are innocent get affected on account of spread of rumour. Learned counsel rightly submits that at times lawyers engaged may innocently argue a case little knowing about forging or suppression of facts involved therein.
11. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned Sr. Counsel stated that at first instance a First Information Report may be directed to be instituted by the Registrar General of this court and if need be subsequently this matter can also be enquired by and made over to the C.B.I.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, this court finds that forgery stares contemptuously and is writ all around this case. The matter cannot be allowed to rest as it is. No one would be allowed however cunning he may be to play with the justice delivery system. This court at first instance direct the Registrar General of this court to institute a F.I.R. regarding forgery committed in filing Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 (Vijay Kumar Mandal vs. State of Bihar). Consequent upon the institution of the F.I.R. the Patna Police will investigate the matter expeditiously and submit a report to this court within four months thereafter.
13. In view of the materials that has come on record including the affidavit filed by Yogendra Prasad Singh, it would be expedient that the investigating agency may also enquire into the following aspects:-
(i) The persons named as being involved in filing the Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007.
(ii) From where the judicial stamps used to be purchased and where the petitions used to be typed, who made necessary correction after stamp report in the said petitions particularly in paragraphs and prayer portion.
(iii) Who were the persons involved in purchasing the judicial stamps as well as rubber stamps.
(v) Who are the other persons connected with these matters.
(vi) Who was the person who came with Opposite Party No. 2 Vijay Kumar Mandal and engaged the learned counsel Mr. Shraddhanand Paswan in this cancellation bail application being Cr. Misc. No. 39891 of 2007.
(vii) How the impugned order dated 4.1.2007 passed in B.A. No. 2130 of 2006, which has been annexed in Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007, has been issued and the persons involved in the preparation and issuance of certified copy of the impugned order.
14. This court would like to mention the pious gesture of Shri Tara Kant Jha, learned Sr. Counsel who voluntarily offered himself to appear in this case as amicus curiae. This court also appreciates the efforts of Shri Nawal Kishore Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Yogendra Prasad Singh in particular who rendered relentless co-operation in his effort which has brought us close in tying noose around the culprits involved in this case. Put up this case under the heading for Orders after four months.
