Uttarakhand High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Stamp Vendor Who Counterfeited E- Stamps

Must Read

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and...

Follow us

On 24th July 2020, Justice Alok Kumar Verma heard the case of Mohan Kumar Saxena vs the State of Uttarakhand, via video-conferencing. The Court rejected the bail plea as a prima facie evidence of counterfeit existed.

Facts of the Case

On 26.12.2019, an FIR was registered against R.S. Rathore, an e-stamp vendor. It was registered under Sections 255 and 258 of the I.P.C. The Registrar Office received two sale deeds. Meera Biswas and Deepak Biswas presented one sale deed each in e-stamp papers.

The Registrar Office found that both the e-stamp papers were not verified in the Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. These stamp papers bore the e-stamp of vendor R.S. Rathore. The Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. informed the Registrar Office that they did not issue the said e-stamp papers to R.S. Rathore.

Besides, they also mentioned that there was no such person as a stamp vendor in the name of R.S. Rathore in their records.

During the investigation, they found that the said e-stamp papers were forged. Thereafter, the police filed the charge sheet. The applicant filed the bail the application under Section 439 of CRPC, 1973.

Arguments of the Applicant

The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the case is falsely implicated against the applicant. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The respondent lodged the FIR after a delay of 36 days. Further, the respondent did not give enough explanation for the same.

No e-stamp papers were recovered from the applicant’s possession. He added that the applicant did not sell the alleged forged e-stamp papers to any of the purchasers.

The applicant is the son-in-law of the original stamp vendor, Rajesh Kumar. The applicant worked as an assistant with him.

The Sub-Registrar In-Charge issued a notice to Rajesh Kumar with regard to forgery committed through forged e-stamp paper. Rajesh Kumar had lodged a written report before that. The written report stated that while he was coming to his place, his bag fell down and documents like Aadhar card, Pan Card, etc. went missing.

Meera Biswas informed the Sub-Registrar that she purchased the e-stamp from one Gappu Bhatanagar. The statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are contradictory. The applicant has no concern with the alleged allegations. No offence under Sections 255 and 258 of the I.P.C. is made out against him.

Arguments of the Respondent

The learned counsel for the State argued that the applicant had been involved in the offences. These offences are grievous in nature under Sections 255 and 258 of the I.P.C. Thus, the applicant is not entitled to bail.

Court’s Analysis

The investigation shows that Rajesh Kumar was the valid license holding vendor. The applicant was also registered as an Assistant vendor. Evidence shows that the applicant looked after the entire work of stamp vending of Rajesh Kumar. 

He has generated the forged e-stamp papers. The applicant misused the numbered e-stationery issued by the e-stamp holding office. On 23.12.2019, Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd produced a report. The report stated that they did not issue those e-stamp certifications and that the e-stamps were fake.

Court’s Decision

It prima facie appears that the present applicant counterfeited the e-stamps issued by Government. Thereafter, he sold these stamps. The applicant was prima facie involved in this offence. 

The Court added that there is no good reason to release him at this stage. The Court, thus, rejected the bail application.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -