Allahabad HC Grants Bail to Former Lekhpal, Flags Alarming Gap Between Court Records and Warrants Received by Police
Granting bail to a Lekhpal charged with revenue record forgery, the Allahabad High Court found a serious discrepancy between warrants shown in the trial court order-sheet and processes actually received by police, and directed a judicial inquiry across all district courts in Uttar Pradesh.
While allowing a bail application filed by a former Lekhpal accused of manipulating revenue records in Kanpur Dehat, Justice Jai Prakash Tiwari, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, went beyond the immediate grant of bail to address a systemic failure: the order-sheet of the trial court showed summons and warrants being issued over many years, yet police authorities confirmed that most of those processes were never received at the concerned police station. The bench directed the District Judge, Kanpur Dehat, to initiate a preliminary inquiry through an independent judicial officer, and ordered that a copy of the judgment be circulated to every District Judge in Uttar Pradesh.
The Forgery Allegation and the Applicant’s Position
The FIR in Case Crime No. 101 of 2007 was lodged on 12 March 2007 at Police Station Rura, District Kanpur Dehat. It alleged that the accused persons committed forgery by fabricating documents and making fraudulent alterations in revenue records. The specific allegation against Mahendra Kumar Dubey was that, while serving as a Lekhpal, he made an incorrect revenue entry favouring co-accused Shiv Prasad in respect of land belonging to the Forest Department.
Counsel for the applicant, Ashutosh Mishra and Shailendra Kumar Ojha, argued that Dubey had himself flagged the error. He submitted a report dated 8 November 2004 before the concerned Tehsildar acknowledging that the alteration in revenue records had been wrongly made and requesting its correction. Acting on that report, the Tehsildar, Derapur, passed an order on 8 February 2007 deleting the name of Shiv Prasad from the revenue records and restoring the name of the Forest Department.
Departmental proceedings were initiated against Dubey. He was suspended from service. He was, however, subsequently reinstated. Counsel relied on the reinstatement as evidence that the departmental authority itself did not sustain a finding of dishonest intent.
Dubey was charged under Sections 467, 468, and 420 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Cognizance was taken on 16 December 2007. According to the applicant, he came to know of the criminal proceedings only in April 2026, when a non-bailable warrant was served on him. He surrendered before the trial court on 5 May 2026 and had been in jail since that date.
Nineteen Years of Warrants — and a Process Trail That Does Not Add Up
The trial court’s order-sheet showed repeated issuances of summons, bailable warrants, and non-bailable warrants between 2007 and 2026. The first bailable warrant appears to have been issued on 25 February 2010. A non-bailable warrant followed on 21 June 2011. Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated on 16 January 2026. Another non-bailable warrant along with Section 82 process was issued on 18 April 2026, in pursuance of which Dubey was arrested and produced before the trial court on 5 May 2026.
This chronology immediately raised a question the bench could not leave unexamined: how had a serving government employee, whose place of work and residence were known to the authorities, evaded process for nearly nineteen years?
By order dated 10 July 2026, the bench directed the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, to conduct a discreet inquiry and file a personal affidavit. The affidavit, when filed, revealed a striking picture. The Station House Officer, Rura, reported that his station had received only a limited set of processes: the non-bailable warrant of 8 July 2025, the non-bailable warrant of 21 August 2025, the combined non-bailable warrant and Section 82 process of 18 April 2026, and summons dated 29 April 2011 and 1 December 2010. The S.H.O. stated categorically that if any other processes had been issued by the trial court’s office, they would have been forwarded to the police station and entered in the relevant record.
The Circle Officer, Akbarpur, filed a separate report confirming that a bailable warrant dated 29 April 2011 had been served on the applicant’s wife, Smt. Sushma Devi, on 19 May 2011. The non-bailable warrant of 21 August 2025 could not be served. The subsequent non-bailable warrant of 18 April 2026 ultimately led to the arrest.
Further information sought from the trial court’s own office under Form-7 revealed something even more pointed: although an order for issuance of a bailable warrant had been passed by the trial court on 2 April 2014, that warrant had never been issued from the court’s office. The trial court’s order-sheet and the records of actual dispatch were therefore inconsistent on their face.
The bench summarised the situation plainly: certain warrants shown in the order-sheet were not in fact issued from the trial court’s office, while some processes that were issued were received by police but could not be executed. The two sets of records did not match.
Legal Framework on Issuance and Service of Process
Before recording its concerns, the bench set out the statutory framework governing processes. Section 190 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 210 BNSS) empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance. Section 204 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 227 BNSS) governs the issue of process upon cognizance. Section 62 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 64 BNSS) requires summons to be served personally by a police officer or officer of the issuing court. Section 66 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 68 BNSS) provides a specific mechanism for service on government servants, requiring the court to send the summons to the head of the office in which the person is employed.
The bench also noted Rule 14 of the General Rules (Criminal), which requires that notice of the intended arrest of a government servant be given to the head of the office, so as to allow proper arrangements to be made for his relief before arrest. Rule 12 mandates that a Register of Processes be maintained in all criminal courts. Rule 9 and Rule 10 set standards for the contents and form of every process issued.
The gap between the statutory scheme and what appeared to have happened in practice was, the bench held, a matter of serious concern. Any discrepancy in the issuance, transmission, or execution of processes not only affects the rights of the accused but raises serious questions about the maintenance and sanctity of the judicial record.
Why the Discrepancy Cannot Be Treated Lightly
The bench observed that the confidence of the public in the judicial system depends, among other things, on the accuracy and sanctity of the judicial record. Any lapse in the maintenance or transmission of judicial processes cannot be treated lightly.
The inquiry was necessary, the bench held, to determine whether the discrepancy arose from inadvertent error, omission, or negligence on the part of any official or employee attached to the office of the trial court. The bench specifically directed that the preliminary inquiry be conducted by a judicial officer who has no connection with the present matter, to preserve independence.
A preliminary inquiry had already been directed on 18 July 2026 into possible negligence by police personnel in executing processes. The judgment of 6 August 2026 built on that direction by adding a parallel inquiry at the judicial end.
Order
Justice Tiwari allowed the bail application. Mahendra Kumar Dubey is directed to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 101 of 2007 upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The standard conditions apply: no tampering with evidence, no intimidation of prosecution witnesses, appearance before the trial court on every date fixed unless personal presence is exempted, no commission of a similar offence, and no inducement or threat to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
The identity, status, and residence proof of sureties are to be verified before acceptance. The trial court retains liberty to cancel bail on breach of any condition. All observations in the order are expressly limited to the bail application and have no bearing on the merits of the case at trial.
The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, without granting unnecessary or long adjournments to either party, if there is no other legal impediment.
The District Judge, Kanpur Dehat, is directed to initiate a preliminary inquiry through an independent judicial officer and to take all necessary action. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of the order forthwith to the District Judge, Kanpur Dehat. A copy of the order is to be circulated to all District Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh, with a direction to apprise all Presiding Judges to remain vigilant regarding the issue of process.