first_imgNews UpdatesSeriousness Of Offence A Relevant Consideration While Considering The Grant Of Bail, Reiterates Supreme Court LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK15 March 2021 11:44 PMShare This – xSeriousness of the offence is one of the relevant considerations while considering the grant of bail, the Supreme Court reiterated in a judgment passed on Monday.In this case, the accused had allegedly committed forgery in Court record. It was alleged that there was a fabrication in the court record by way of using whitener in Sessions Trial No.89­A/01, State vs. Mahesh,…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginSeriousness of the offence is one of the relevant considerations while considering the grant of bail, the Supreme Court reiterated in a judgment passed on Monday.In this case, the accused had allegedly committed forgery in Court record. It was alleged that there was a fabrication in the court record by way of using whitener in Sessions Trial No.89­A/01, State vs. Mahesh, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC, Crime Case No.152/2000, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao. The court record was tampered with and instead of ‘Mahesh’, ‘Ramesh’ had been written.  Earlier Sessions Court dismissed the bail application observing that the allegations against the accused are very serious of forging the court’s records and that the accused is the beneficiary of the said forgery and therefore this is not a fit case to release him on bail. However, the High Court allowed his bail application.In appeal, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah noted that the accused is facing the trial for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120­B IPC. It said:”The High Court has not at all considered that the accused is charged for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120­B IPC and the maximum punishment for offence under Section 467 IPC is 10 years and fine/imprisonment for life and even for the offence under Section 471 IPC the similar 18 punishment. Apart from that forging and/or manipulating the court record and getting benefit of such forged/manipulated court record is a very serious offence. If the Court record is manipulated and/or forged, it will hamper the administration of justice. Forging/manipulating the Court record and taking the benefit of the same stands on altogether a different footing than forging/manipulating other documents between two individuals. Therefore, the High Court ought to have been more cautious/serious in granting the bail to a person who is alleged to have forged/manipulated the court record and taken the benefit of such manipulated and forged court record more particularly when he has been charge­sheeted having found prima facie case and the charge has been framed.”, the bench observed while taking note of the allegations raised in the FIR against the accused.The accused contended that as the record is now in the court’s custody there is no chance of tampering is concerned, the allegation against the accused are of tampering/forging/manipulating the court record which was in the custody of the court. In this context, the bench observed:”Seriousness of the offence is one of the relevant considerations while considering the grant of bail, which has not been considered at all by the High Court while releasing Respondent No.2 ­ accused on bail.”Where the allegations are of tampering with the court order and for whatever reason the State has not filed the bail application the locus is not that much important and it is insignificant, the bench said while rejecting the contention that the appellant has no locus in this case.Case: Naveen Singh Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh  [ CrA 320 OF 2021]Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and MR ShahCitation: LL 2021 SC 162Click here to Read/Download JudgmentNext Storylast_img read more