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

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

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

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -