Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

Bail Granted to Former Computer Operator and Advocate in Forged Deeds Case Due to Lack of Substantial Incriminating Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court of Uttarakhand emphasizes presumption of innocence and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court of Uttarakhand, presided by Justice Alok Kumar Verma, has granted bail to Dal Chand Singh and Kamal Virmani in connection with a case involving allegations of creating and using forged sale deeds and title deeds. The judgment emphasized the absence of substantial incriminating evidence against the accused and highlighted the constitutional presumption of innocence.

The case originated from Case Crime No. 281 of 2023, registered at police station Kotwali Dehradun. The accused, Dal Chand Singh, a former Computer Operator, and Kamal Virmani, an Advocate, were implicated in a scheme involving the creation and use of forged sale deeds and title deeds. These forged documents were allegedly used to initiate mutation proceedings and replace original documents at the Sub-Registrar Office in Dehradun. The applicants were accused of conspiring to bind false deeds in place of the original ones, with Singh alleged to have physically replaced the documents and Virmani accused of drafting the forged documents.

Allegations of Forgery and Conspiracy:

The prosecution’s case stated that false sale deeds and title deeds were created for vacant lands or lands whose owners did not reside in Dehradun. These forged documents were then substituted for the originals in the Sub-Registrar Office. The applicants were found to be involved during the investigation, with Singh allegedly binding the false deeds and Virmani drafting the forged documents, some of which were reportedly recovered from his computer.

Absence of Incriminating Evidence:

Justice Verma noted that no incriminating material was recovered from the possession of the accused. The defense argued that Singh had not replaced any original documents and had only worked as a Computer Operator through an outsourcing agency for a brief period. Similarly, no incriminating articles were found on Virmani’s computer, and the forged deeds had not been declared forged by any competent court. The defense also highlighted Virmani’s long-standing legal career and lack of previous misconduct.

Justice Verma emphasized, “Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The court reasoned that the applicants had already been in judicial custody for an extended period, and with the charge-sheet filed, there was no requirement for further custodial interrogation. The defense highlighted the professional background of the accused, particularly Kamal Virmani’s 27-year career as an Advocate, asserting that their continued detention was unnecessary.

Granting bail, the court imposed conditions to ensure the accused’s regular attendance at trial and to prevent any tampering with evidence. The judgment underscored the presumption of innocence and the importance of personal liberty under the Constitution. This decision is likely to influence future bail considerations in similar cases, reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to uphold individual rights against undue detention.

 

Date of Decision: May 15, 2024

Dal Chand Singh & Kamal Virmani vs. State of Uttarakhand

Similar News