Certification of Mutation Entries on Forged Documents by Revenue Officers Is Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in 1996 Land Fraud Case

"Delay in Lodging FIR Cannot Wash Away Allegations of Abuse of Official Position in Facilitating Fraudulent Land Transfers" -  Supreme Court of India upholding the Bombay High Court’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail to two retired revenue officers accused of certifying fraudulent mutation entries in 1996 based on forged powers of attorney. Despite the FIR being lodged only in 2019, the Court firmly held that such a delay “cannot obliterate the serious allegations of official misconduct involving land transactions based on forged documents.”

The case concerned the alleged misuse of official powers by government functionaries, who while acting as Circle Officer and Talathi, certified entries in the land revenue records that were founded upon documents purporting to be executed by individuals who had long been deceased. The appellants contended that they acted in their official capacity without dishonest intent, but the Supreme Court found no grounds to grant them the protective cover of anticipatory bail at the pre-trial stage.

“Mutation Entries Cancelled in 1998, But Role of Officials in Facilitating Fraud Remains Alive for Trial”: Supreme Court on Retired Officers’ Liability

The Court held that even though the mutation entries were annulled in 1998, the appellants’ alleged role in facilitating those entries through abuse of office remains a live issue to be tested during trial. The bench emphasized that, “the fact that the entries were later cancelled does not efface the possibility of prior criminal complicity, especially when the entries enabled fraudulent transfer of immovable property.”

It observed that the registered sale deed, based on which the entries were made, itself stemmed from purported powers of attorney executed by persons already dead. The original landowners had passed away between 1969 and 1990, yet the powers of attorney were allegedly signed in 1996, exposing the entire transaction as prima facie fraudulent.

The appellants, who were not named in the initial FIR, were later arraigned as Accused Nos. 5 and 6, facing charges under Sections 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC, for allegedly “certifying fraudulent mutation entries on the strength of forged documents”.

“Custodial Interrogation May Be Necessary Even in Documentary Offences to Trace the Chain of Fraud”: Apex Court Justifies Arrest Despite Delay

Dismissing the argument that custodial interrogation was unnecessary in a case based on documents that were over two decades old, the Court clarified that “even in documentary fraud cases, custodial interrogation may be required to trace the chain of transactions, ascertain complicity, and prevent tampering of records.” It noted that “the appellants, despite enjoying interim protection for nearly six years, had failed to extend full cooperation to the investigation.”

Responding to the contention that the appellants merely endorsed documents that were facially valid, the bench held that “certification of mutation entries in official capacity does not insulate one from criminal liability if the certification enabled fraudulent transactions.” The question of whether the officers acted with criminal intent or in collusion with the main accused (A1) was a matter to be determined during trial, not at the stage of anticipatory bail.

“Inordinate Delay in Deciding Bail Applications Is Antithetical to the Right to Personal Liberty”: Supreme Court Calls Out Judicial Delay

One of the strongest messages in the judgment was reserved for the judiciary itself. The Court noted with concern that the anticipatory bail applications had remained pending before the High Court for nearly six years. Despite granting interim protection since 2019, the High Court failed to decide the matter until July 4, 2025, thereby prolonging uncertainty and undermining judicial efficiency.

The bench quoted its earlier rulings in Nikesh Tarachand Shah, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, Rajesh Seth, and Satendra Kumar Antil, reiterating that “applications affecting personal liberty must not be kept pending indefinitely. Such pendency directly impinges upon the fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21.”

The Court underscored that bail applications are not meant to be “a sword of Damocles hanging over the applicant’s head” and called for urgent reforms in judicial case management. It directed that bail and anticipatory bail applications must be disposed of preferably within two months, except where delay is attributable to the litigants.

It observed, “While docket explosion remains a chronic challenge, cases involving personal liberty deserve precedence. In matters concerning liberty, bail courts must be sensitive and ensure that constitutional ethos is upheld.”

“Anticipatory Bail Is a Statutory Right, Not a Shield for Those Accused of Facilitating Fraud Through Official Machinery”: Court Declines Pre-Arrest Protection

The Court once again clarified the scope of Section 438 CrPC, stating that anticipatory bail is a statutory safeguard, not a fundamental right, and it must be granted only where the balance of interests justifies protection from arrest.

While recognizing the importance of liberty, the Court held, “the balance must also consider the legitimate needs of investigation in complex property frauds where official machinery is alleged to have been misused.” The court rejected the argument that absence of personal gain or direct involvement in forgery was sufficient to bar custodial questioning, noting that “facilitation of fraud through public office is no less grave merely because it was passive or indirect.”

Finally, the bench dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court's rejection of anticipatory bail. However, it granted liberty to the appellants to apply for regular bail, which should be considered independently of any observations made in this judgment.

Date of Decision: September 12, 2025