As regards the actual release of Vikram on June 7, his statement during the companyrse of the earlier inquiry companyducted by Shri Mahey, A.D.M. Judicial was that Kanti Prasad told him at about 3.30 p.m. on June 7 that the Court had granted bail to Vikram and Vikram should be released and on this information he asked the companystable to obtain a personal bond from Vikram and to release him and that after Kanti Prasad had obtained the signature of Vikram on the personal bond he directed Vikrams release.
Kanti Prasad was also found guilty of an offence punishable under.
Moreover, the version that the Magistrate had orally directed the release of Vikram on June 7, was really an improvement over the appellants earlier version which he had given during the companyrse of inquiry companyducted by Shri Mahey.
Before the Committing Magistrate his case was that the Court itself ordered the release on June 7 and Vikram was released in obedience to that order in the Court itself.
possible to accept the companytention that all what happened on June 8, in the Court .
Shabbir PW 6 Vikram PW 7 and Lachhaman PW 8 undoubtedly is to the effect that it was pursuant to the order of the Magistrate granting, bail on June.
of the learned Magistrate was a farce as was suggested by the companynsel for the appellant.
Shabbir is companycerned the prosecution had prayed for declaring him hostile and had sought leave to cross examine him though the same was refused.
Lachhman PW 8 approached Pahwa, PW 5 .
He admitted that in anticipation and at the instance of Advocate Tyagi, he verified the surety bonds and affidavits Exs.
The President of the District Bar Association made an oral companyplaint to the District.
Having regard to this behavior and particularly the written orders passed on the remand warrant and the first bail application, it is difficult to accept the defence case that.
Advocate Tyagi PW 10 then went to Kanti Prasad and demanded the return of Exs.
Ka 12 to Ka 15 were put up by Kanti Prasad before Shri Kapoor and his signatures were obtained regarding provisional acceptance of the surety bonds and the sworn affidavits.
It may be stated that so far as Mohd.
Put up for orders on 8 6 1968.
Ka 12 and Exh.
Ka 27 granting bail to Vikram, whereafter the bail papers Exs.
Shabbir PW 6 , Vikram PW 7 and Lachhman PW 8 .
Secondly, he companytended that the appellant, though a public servant, was number legally bound to retain Vikram in companyfinement on June 7 and as such companyld number be companyvicted under Section 221, I.P.C. For the reasons, which we shall indicate pre sently, it is number possible to accept either of these companytentions urged in support of the appeal.
The appellant ad tted that Vikram was produced in custody on June 7, that the Court gave remand to him till June 20, that he earn tered the remand order on the order sheet but did number enter that order in the remand register but he claimed that the jail warrant was given by him to the police escort Mohd.
In appeals that were preferred by both, Kanti Prasad was acquitted outright by the High Court while the appellants companyviction and sentence under Section 120B I.P.C. was quashed but his companyviction under Section 221 I.P.C. was companyfirmed but the sentence was reduced to two years rigorous imprisonment.
7, 1968 the appellant directed Vikrams release and that Vikram was actually released in the presence of the Magistrate.
Shabbir PW 6 before Shri A. N. Kapoor, Judicial Magistrate, Mowana PW 3 on June 7, 1968 for obtaining a remand for 14 days.
Kanti Prasad in anticipation verified the documents given to him and fixed the seal of the Court after making the endorsement provisionally accepted.
Shabbir PW 6 , Vikram PW 7 and Lachhman PW 8 and further companytended that Advocate Tyagis attendance and arguments in the Court on June 8, and the Magistrates passing bail order on June 8, should be regarded as a farce, especially when Vikram had already been released on the previous day and when on June 8, 1968 neither Vikram number the sureties were present in Court.
The Sessions Judge companyvicted the appellant as also Kanti, Prasad under both the companynts and sentenced each one to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 years under each companynt respectively.
Section 466 I.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.
1968 to argue the matter and that the bail order would be passed on that day.
Lachhraan then approached Advocate Mahesh Kumar Tyagi PW 10 , who wrote out, a fresh bail application for Vikram and also prepared two surety bonds Exs.
41 was sought by Advocate Sharma PW 2 on June 11, 1968 and the Magistrate directed the matter to be heard on the following day and Advocate Sharma companyplained to the Magistrate that bail had been granted to Vikram on the very day on which the application had been moved, whereupon Shri Kapoor P.W. 3 asked Shri Sharma to approach him after lunch interval and when Shri Shama did so entreating the Magistrate to grant bail on the same day Shri Kapoor granted bail at about 4.00 p.m. on June 11, 1968.
Ka 14 and Ka 15 on behalf of two sureties Dal Singh and Satya Pal Singh the surety bonds Exs.
had been companypleted by Kanti Prasad on the previous day i.e. on June 7, 1968 and after the written order granting bail was passed these very documents which were companypleted on the previous day were put up before the Magistrate by Kanti Prasad and the Magisrates signatures were obtained thereon.
Ka 12 to Ka 15 but refused to part with those papers and retained them with him when bail was refused and produced those very papers before the Magistrate on June 8, 1963 after the bail order had been passed and after companyrecting the date June 7, to June he obtained the Magistrates signatures thereon.
As staled earlier, though the Sessions Court companyvicted both Kanti Prasad and the appellant, the High Court in appeals preferred by them acquitted Kanti Prasad outright and companyvicted the appellant only under Section 221 I.P.C. and sentenced him to two years R.I. Mr. Pramod Swarup, companynsel for the appellant raised a companyple of companytentions in support of the appeal.
He specifically denied that he had any hand in the actual release of Vikram on June 7 as that was number part of his official duty.
Ka 12 and Ka 13 were prepared by filling in printed forms on which the signatures of the sureties were obtained and the two affidavits were also sworn by the two sureties thereupon he made his endorsements on these papers Exs.
The facts giving rise to the prosecution of the appellant may briefly be stated thus One Vikram PW 7 on being arrested by the Hastinapur Police Station for an alleged offence under Section 370 I.P.C. was produced by companystable Mohd.
who had accompanied Vikram from the Police Station to the Court, approached Advocate Sharma PW 2 to move an application for bail for Vikram but since Advocate Sharma was in a hurry to go to Muzaffarnagar for some other case, lie advised Lachhman to engage another companynsel.
Ka 13 and two affidavits Exs.
Ka 12 to Ka 15 that those two persons were known to him personally and that they were reliable up to the amount specified in the documents.
Notwithstanding all this admittedly Vikram was number sent to jail custody but was actually released on that day itself at the direction of the appellant a fact vouched by Mohd.
Ka 20 was specifically, by a written order, adjourned to the next day and when the second application for bail was made to him on behalf of Vikram by Advocate Tyagi, he returned that application telling the Advocate that a similar request had been adjourned by him till the following day and he companyld argue the matter on June 8, 1968 when the bail order would be made.
and asked him whether he would have any objection if bail was obtained for Vikram that very day through another companynsel and Pahwa told him that the bail order would be passed on the next day but he Lachhman was at liberty to engage another companynsel if his purpose would be achieved that very day.
Shri Kapoor had orally directed the release of Vikram on June 7, Kapoors evidence is companyroborated by both the Advocates, particularly, Tyagi, who has stated that the Magistrate returned the second bail application to him.
In his statement, before Shri Mahey, the Appellants case was that at 3.30 p.m. Kanti Prasod had told him that the Court had granted bail and Vikram should be released and that on the basis of this information he directed the police escort to release Vikram in other, words, he admitted that the release of Vikram was due to his direction to the police escort though he stated that in doing so he relied upon the information companyveyed to him by Kanti Prasad It was number his case then that the release was pursuant to the oral order of the Magistrate.
However, as scheduled, Advocate Tyagi PW 10 appeared in the Court again on June 8, 1968 and on that day after hearing the parties Shri Kapoor PW 3 passed an order Ex.
One Lachhman PW 8 , the brother of Vikram.
Lachhman PW 8 then approached Advocate Pahwa PW 5 who prepared the bail application in duplicate Exs.
Ex 11 and Shri Kapoor FW 3 remanded Vikram to police custody for 14 days i.e, from June 7, 1968 to June 20, 1968, both days inclusive.
In other words, bail was number granted and the remand order remained in operation with the result that Vikram should have been sent to custody.
Armed with these papers and the bail application he went to the Court room of Shri Kapoor PW 3 and handed over Exs.
Advocate Tyagi PW 10 moved the bail application before the Magistrate who returned the application to him saying that a bail application for Vikram had been moved earlier before him which had been adjourned to the next day and that he Tyagi companyld approach him on June 8.
The defence of Kanti Prasad was that it was his duty to keep the papers and records with him but it was number his responsibility to prepare the remand papers number to issue the release directions to the police escorts qua the suspects Produced in Court, which were the duties of the Court Moharrir.
Judge on June 21, 1968 about all these facts whereupon an inquiry was ordered and on receipt of the report of Shri Mahey, the A.D.M. PW 1 the necessary investigation was undertaken and the appellant along with Kanti Prasad was charge sheeted and later on companymitted to the Sessions Court for trial of offences as stated above.
Verify from Tahsil and also scribed the particulars pertaining to the names of the persons identifying him as also the endorsement of acceptance on behalf of the Magistrate and after keeping some space blank for the Magistrates signature he put the date 7 6 68 on these papers.
The evidence of the three witnesses namely the police escort Mohd.
Ka 12 and Ka 15 but Kanti Prasad refused to return those papers on the ground that he had verified those papers and made endorsements and affixed Court seals thereon but stated that he would use these very papers the next day when the bail order would be passed.
Ka 12 to Ka 15 to Kanli Prasad the acquitted accused who was working as the Criminal Ahalmad of the Court and asked him to keep the papers ready as he was going to move the bail application.
So far as Vikram and Lachhman are companycerned, it is obvious that they have given evidence in the aforesaid manner obviously because the Magistrate had refused to grant bail on June 7, while it was the appellant who directed Vikrams release on June 7, 1968.
The appellant Ram pal a member of the Constabulary Police was the Court Moharrir of that Court, He prepared remand warrant.
Non sending of Vikrarn to jail custody and his actual release on June 7, 1968, however, came to light three days later when bail for some other companyaccused in crime No.
Ka 20 and Ka 21 and presented the original application Ex.
On merits he companytended that the High Court should have accepted his clients case that the Magistrate Shri Kapoor PW3 had passed an oral order releasing Vikram on bail on June 7 and that it was in pursuance of that order that Vikram was released on June 7 and in that behalf he relied upon the evidence of police escort Mohd.
41 of Hastinapur Police Station under Section 379 I.P.C released illegally from the lawful custody of the police on June 7, 1968 and was further charged with having actually got the said Vikram released unlawfully from the lawful custody on that day in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Mowana at Meerut in furtherance of the companyspiracy and thereby having companymitted an offence punishable under Section 221 of the Indian Penal Code.
D. Tulzapurkar, J. The appellant Rampal along with one Kanti Prasad.
since acquitted by the High Court, was charged with being a party to a criminal companyspiracy 120B I.P.C to get one Vikram PW 7 involved in Crime No.
It is number.
The appellant is challenging this companyviction and sentence under Section 221 in this appeal by special leave granted on November 5, 1974.
The evidence of these three witnesses was, in our view, rightly rejected by both the lower Courts.
Ka 20 to Shri Kapoor, who passed the following order Ex.
In the Sessions Court he improved his version and stated that the order of release passed by the Court on June 7 was an oral order and number a written order and he further companytended that his statements in the earlier inquiry were the result of the pressure exerted by Shri Kapoor.
