Discrepancy Between Trial Court Order Sheets & Police Processes: Allahabad High Court Orders Inquiry
|The Allahabad High Court was considering a bail application seeking the release of the applicant on bail in a criminal case.
Expressing concern over the discrepancy between the processes reflected in the order-sheets of the Trial Court and the processes actually received at the police station in a criminal case of cheating and forgery, the Allahabad High Court has ordered the District Judge to initiate inquiry into the matter and take the necessary action.
The High Court was considering a bail application seeking the release of the applicant on bail in a case registered under Sections 467, 468, 420 of the BNS during pendency of the trial.
The Single Bench of Justice Jai Prakash Tiwari held, “Thus, there appears to be a discrepancy between the processes reflected in the order-sheets of the trial court and the processes actually received at the concerned police station. The material placed before this Court also indicates that certain warrants shown in the order-sheet were not issued from the office of the trial court, whereas some processes issued by the trial court were received by the police authorities but could not be executed.”
“Accordingly, the learned District Judge, Kanpur Dehat is directed to initiate a preliminary inquiry to be conducted through a Judicial Officer (who has no connection with the present matter) and to take all necessary actions at his own end”, it ordered.
Advocate Ashutosh Mishra represented the Applicant while Government Advocate represented the opposite party.
Factual Background
The FIR was lodged in 2007, alleging that the accused persons manipulated the official records and committed forgery by fabricating documents, including making fraudulent alterations in the revenue records. It was alleged that the applicant manipulated the revenue records and made an incorrect revenue entry in favour of co-accused Shiv Prasad in respect of land belonging to the Forest Department while the applicant was working as a Lekhpal. It was brought to the Court’s notice that the applicant had submitted a report before the Tehsildar, admitting that the alteration in the revenue records had wrongly been made and requesting that the same be corrected. Thereafter, the Tehsildar deleted the name of Shiv Prasad from the revenue records and the name of the Forest Department was restored.
Departmental proceedings were initiated against the applicant, and he was suspended from service by the competent authority, but he was subsequently reinstated in service. However, cognisance was taken in the matter. Summons and warrants were issued. The applicant claimed that he came to know about the present criminal proceedings only in April, 2026. Immediately thereafter, he surrendered before the court concerned. It was the case of the applicant that he has been languishing in jail since May 5, 2026. The applicant further undertook that he would not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence, nature of allegations and arguments advanced by the parties, the Bench held that the applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
The Bench also noticed that although the trial court had issued summons, bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants from time to time for securing the presence of the applicant, the inquiry conducted by the police authorities indicated that most of the processes allegedly issued against the applicant were not received at the concerned police station. The police authorities had stated that the processes received at the police station were duly entered in the relevant records and apart from the processes mentioned in their reports, no other summons, bailable warrants or non-bailable warrants issued by the office of the trial court were received by the concerned police station.
The Bench expressed concern over the discrepancy between the processes reflected in the order-sheets of the trial court and the processes actually received at the concerned police station. “Any discrepancy in the issuance, transmission or execution of summons, warrants or non-bailable warrants not only affects the rights of the accused but also raises serious questions regarding the maintenance and sanctity of the judicial record”, it stated.
The Bench thus ordered, “It is, therefore, necessary that the matter be examined at the end of the trial court, particularly with regard to the issuance and dispatch of the processes. Such an inquiry is also necessary to ascertain whether the discrepancy occurred on account of any inadvertent error, omission or negligence on the part of any official/employee attached to the office of the trial court.”
The Bench concluded the matter by directing the District Judge, Kanpur Dehat, to initiate a preliminary inquiry. “A copy of this order shall also be circulated amongst all the District Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh, with a direction to apprise all the Presiding Judges to remain vigilant regarding the issue of process, as it is one of the very genesis of a speedy trial”, it ordered.
Cause Title: Mahendra Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:165189)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Ashutosh Mishra, Shailendra Kumar Ojha
Respondent: Government Advocate