Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by the accused in connection with allegations of forging and fabricating an order purportedly passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Pune. The forged order had been produced before the High Court to influence proceedings in a prior case. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar held that the offences were serious in nature, involving an attempt to derail judicial proceedings and misuse the criminal process.
The Court ruled that custodial interrogation was necessary and refused pre-arrest bail, observing: “Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner, especially where the allegations concern fabrication of judicial records.”
Facts
The applicant, a former employee of CTR Manufacturing Industries, was earlier named in an FIR (No. 142 of 2022) alleging theft of confidential diagrams and data supplied to a rival company (EMR). Though his name was initially excluded from the chargesheet after a closure report under Section 169 CrPC, a forged JMFC order dated 13 December 2024 surfaced. This forged order falsely recorded that the closure report had been accepted by the JMFC and that the accused stood discharged.
The forged document was later produced in the High Court during anticipatory bail proceedings in the 2022 case. Based on this document, interim protection was granted in January 2025. When the complainant challenged the order, the JMFC clarified that no such order had been passed, and the alleged document was forged.
Multiple FIRs were thereafter lodged — one by the High Court Registry in Mumbai (FIR No. 78/2025) and another by the complainant at Vimantal Police Station, Pune (FIR No. 152/2025). The present anticipatory bail plea concerned the Pune FIR, charging the accused under Sections 246, 318, 337, 339, and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Issues
- Whether Vimantal Police Station, Pune, had jurisdiction to register the FIR despite the offence involving a forged order produced in the Bombay High Court.
- Whether Section 215 of BNSS barred the FIR on the ground that offences relating to court documents could only be acted upon by the concerned court.
- Whether two FIRs for the same offence — one by the Registry and one by the complainant — were permissible.
- Whether anticipatory bail could be granted in a case involving forgery of a judicial order.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The applicant argued that Vimantal Police Station lacked jurisdiction, as the forged order had been produced before the Bombay High Court, not at Pune. He contended that under Section 215 BNSS (akin to Section 195 CrPC), cognizance of such offences could only be taken on a complaint by the concerned court, not through an FIR.
It was further argued that multiple FIRs for the same offence were impermissible, and since the High Court Registry had already lodged FIR No. 78 of 2025 in Mumbai, the Pune FIR should be quashed. The applicant also stressed his cooperation with investigation and claimed the alleged forgery was the act of an advocate without his instructions.
Reliance was placed on precedents like Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Prasad Keni, Arnab Goswami v. Union of India, Amish Devgan v. Union of India, Tarak Dash Mukherjee v. State of U.P., and Kapil Agarwal v. Sanjay Sharma to argue against multiplicity of FIRs and in support of personal liberty.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant, supported by the prosecution, opposed bail, stressing that the applicant was the beneficiary of the forged order, which had misled the High Court into granting him interim protection. It was argued that FIRs at Mumbai and Pune dealt with distinct facets — one concerning production of the forged order before the Court, and the other concerning its preparation to undermine proceedings in FIR No. 142 of 2022.
The complainant relied on Navin Singh v. State of U.P. to submit that once an accused benefits from a forged court order, he cannot escape liability by blaming others. Jurisdictional objections were rebutted by citing Satvinder Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that police must register an FIR where cognisable offences are disclosed, leaving jurisdictional transfers for later.
On the scope of Section 215 BNSS, reliance was placed on Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, where the Supreme Court clarified that bar on prosecution applies only to documents forged after being placed in court (custodia legis), not to documents forged beforehand and then produced in court.
Analysis of the Law
The Court held that offences concerning forged judicial orders strike at the foundation of justice. It reiterated the principle from Iqbal Singh Marwah that Section 195 CrPC (now Section 215 BNSS) applies only where forgery is committed after the document becomes part of court records. Since the JMFC never passed such an order, the forged document was created independently and then produced, making Section 215 inapplicable.
On jurisdiction, the Court relied on Satvinder Kaur to affirm that police cannot refuse to investigate cognisable offences on territorial grounds. The forged order was prepared to affect FIR No. 142/2022 under investigation at Vimantal Police Station, hence Pune police had jurisdiction.
The Court also clarified that though some overlap existed, the two FIRs addressed distinct offences — preparation of the forged order (Pune FIR) and its production before the High Court (Mumbai FIR). Amalgamation could be considered later, but not at the investigation stage.
Precedent Analysis
- Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370: Held Section 195 CrPC applies only when forgery occurs after a document enters court custody. Applied here to reject Section 215 BNSS bar.
- Satvinder Kaur v. State (1999) 8 SCC 728: Police must register FIR on disclosure of cognisable offence, jurisdictional questions can be sorted later. Applied to uphold Vimantal FIR.
- Navin Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 6 SCC 191: Beneficiary of a forged court order cannot disclaim liability. Applied to show applicant’s culpability.
- Nikita Jagganath Shetty v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489): Anticipatory bail is exceptional; serious offences demand stricter scrutiny. Applied to deny bail.
Other precedents cited by the applicant (Bandekar Brothers, Arnab Goswami, Amish Devgan, Kapil Agarwal) were distinguished as relating to freedom of speech, multiplicity of FIRs, or personal liberty, none of which could override the gravity of forging judicial records.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Jamdar emphasized that the forged order was not merely an irregularity but a deliberate attempt to mislead the High Court and terminate proceedings in FIR No. 142/2022. The applicant was the direct beneficiary of this act, as interim bail was granted based on the forged order.
The Court noted that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be granted where serious offences like forgery of judicial records are alleged. Citing Nikita Jagganath Shetty, the Court underscored that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the conspiracy and preserve evidence.
The Court held: “This is a case where a forged and fabricated order of the learned JMFC, Pune has been prepared and used to mislead this Court. Such offences go to the very root of administration of justice. No case for pre-arrest bail is made out.”
Conclusion
The High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, holding that the seriousness of allegations, applicant’s role as beneficiary of the forgery, and the need for custodial interrogation outweighed claims of cooperation and jurisdictional objections. The interim application also stood disposed of.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the strict approach of courts towards forgery of judicial documents, clarifying that such acts are distinct offences even if multiple FIRs arise. It underscores that anticipatory bail is not meant to shield individuals accused of grave misconduct that undermines justice. The ruling also clarifies the scope of Section 215 BNSS, ensuring that technical objections cannot be misused to shield accused in cases of forged orders produced in court.
FAQs
1. Can two FIRs be registered for the same forged order?
Yes, if they deal with distinct aspects — preparation of the forged document and its production before court are separate offences.
2. Does Section 215 BNSS bar FIRs in cases of forged court orders?
No. The bar applies only if forgery is committed after the document becomes part of court records. Forging an order beforehand is outside its scope.
3. Why was anticipatory bail denied here?
Because the offence involved fabrication of a judicial order, a grave act undermining justice. Courts have held anticipatory bail is exceptional and not available in such serious cases.