Court’s Decision
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a stern judgment delivered by Justice Sumeet Goel, refused anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of forging judicial summons purportedly issued by a court to threaten and extort an individual. The Court emphasized that such acts are not mere forgery but a direct assault on the integrity of the justice delivery system.
Justice Goel observed:
“Forging judicial documents strikes at the very sanctity of the justice delivery system. It is not an offence against an individual but against the very foundation of the rule of law.”
Holding that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy, the Court dismissed the bail plea and directed the petitioner to surrender before the investigating agency.
Facts
The case arose from a complaint alleging that the accused had created and circulated forged judicial summons bearing the seal and signature of a Judicial Magistrate, summoning the complainant in a fictitious criminal matter. The forged summons were allegedly served through intermediaries, leading the complainant to approach the police in fear of legal action.
Upon verification, the concerned court denied issuing any such summons, prompting the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 420 (cheating), 465, 467, 468, 471 (forgery and use of forged documents), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, and relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act.
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, claiming that he had no involvement in the forgery and that his name was falsely implicated based on confessional statements of co-accused.
Issues
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a person accused of forging judicial documents, given the gravity of the offence.
- Whether custodial interrogation is necessary when the alleged acts involve conspiracy and forgery of official judicial records.
- Whether the petitioner’s plea of false implication warranted pre-arrest protection.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated due to rivalry with the complainant. It was submitted that there was no direct evidence linking him to the preparation or use of the forged summons. The only basis for his implication was the statement of co-accused, which, according to the defence, was not sufficient to deny liberty.
He further contended that the forged summons were not personally prepared by him, and that the investigating agency had already seized the electronic devices and recovered the forged documents. Hence, custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
The petitioner also relied upon Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, urging the Court to uphold the principle that arrest should be an exception, not the rule, particularly where the accused cooperates with the investigation.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State vehemently opposed the petition, contending that the forgery of judicial summons was part of a well-orchestrated conspiracy involving multiple persons, and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was essential to uncover the network behind the crime.
It was submitted that the offence was not limited to private cheating but was an attack on the integrity of the judicial process, warranting the strictest view. The State also argued that anticipatory bail, being a discretionary relief, could not be granted where allegations involved tampering with evidence, impersonation of judicial officers, or misuse of the court’s name.
The prosecution placed reliance on State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, where the Supreme Court had held that offences undermining public trust must be treated as crimes against society, not just individual wrongs.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reaffirming that it is an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly, especially when offences are of a serious and systemic nature.
Justice Goel underscored that forgery of judicial documents stands in a category distinct from ordinary financial or personal forgeries because it undermines public confidence in the justice system. The act of fabricating a court summons, the Court observed, “creates fear, confusion, and disrespect for judicial institutions,” thereby striking at the core of the rule of law.
The Court emphasized that custodial interrogation is necessary not only to recover devices used in the forgery but also to identify others involved in the circulation of forged documents through digital or print means.
Precedent Analysis
- State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364) – The Supreme Court held that crimes involving public trust, such as forgery of official documents, must be viewed as offences against society and not treated leniently.
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273) – The petitioner relied on this judgment to argue for protection from arrest. The Court distinguished it, observing that Arnesh Kumar applies to routine offences and not to crimes that “shake the institutional fabric of justice.”
- P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24) – Cited by the State; the Supreme Court held that economic and white-collar offences require deeper investigation, and anticipatory bail should be denied when custodial interrogation is essential to trace the conspiracy.
The High Court adopted the rationale in these precedents to conclude that anticipatory bail in such cases would impede effective investigation and send a wrong signal to society.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Goel reasoned that the act of forging judicial summons was an unprecedented affront to the judiciary, intended to exploit the authority of courts for personal or financial gain. He held that such acts cannot be trivialized as mere forgery but amount to a systemic corruption of justice.
The Court observed:
“The judicial system derives its sanctity from the faith of the people. Forging court documents for personal ends is not merely a criminal act—it is a betrayal of that faith.”
Rejecting the petitioner’s claim of false implication, the Court found prima facie evidence of involvement and noted that custodial interrogation was vital to recover devices and establish the communication trail. It further cautioned that granting anticipatory bail in such cases would “set a dangerous precedent of leniency toward those who manipulate the symbols of justice.”
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, observing that offences involving forgery of judicial documents “cannot be treated at par with ordinary economic offences.” The Court held that the gravity of the act, its impact on public confidence, and the need for detailed investigation outweighed the petitioner’s plea for pre-arrest protection.
The petitioner was directed to surrender before the investigating agency within one week, and the Court clarified that any subsequent regular bail application must be considered on its merits after custodial interrogation.
Implications
- Reinforces the judiciary’s intolerance toward forgery of judicial documents and misuse of court authority.
- Clarifies that anticipatory bail will not be granted in cases where forgery attacks the integrity of the justice system.
- Underscores the importance of custodial interrogation to trace conspiracies involving electronic or digital evidence.
- Sets a precedent for treating such acts as crimes against society, not private wrongs.