Forgery of Judicial Order to Influence Investigation Is a Grave Offence: Bombay High Court Denies Bail to Ex-Employee Accused of Submitting Fake JMFC Order

“A forged and fabricated order was prepared not merely for producing it before this Court, but to ensure that criminal proceedings initiated by FIR No.142 of 2022 come to an end — Custodial Interrogation Is Justified Where Fake Judicial Orders Are Used to Mislead the Court” - In a strongly worded judgment Bombay High Court rejected Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1516 of 2025 filed by Haribhau Dnyandev Chemte, holding that forgery of a judicial order, done to obstruct criminal prosecution, demands custodial interrogation and cannot be treated lightly.

The case, stemming from an earlier forgery attempt in an anticipatory bail matter, sets a serious precedent on the misuse of judicial process, while also clarifying jurisdictional authority, scope of multiple FIRs, and limits of protection under Section 215 of the BNSS

“Forgery Was Not Just a Bail Strategy, But a Calculated Attempt to Terminate the Criminal Case Itself”

The Court began by recounting how the forged order dated 13th December 2024, allegedly passed by the JMFC, Pune, was produced by Chemte’s lawyer in support of Anticipatory Bail Application No.2134 of 2022. That forged document claimed that proceedings against Chemte under FIR No.142 of 2022 had been dropped.

Justice Jamdar observed: “The above purported order of the learned JMFC clearly shows that the order is not intended to be used only for the purpose of producing the same before this Court… but the same is prepared for the purpose of ensuring that the criminal case arising out of FIR No.142 of 2022 comes to an end.”

This attempt to influence the outcome of a pending police investigation by presenting a fabricated judicial order was seen as an independent and aggravated criminal act, going far beyond a mere procedural lapse.

“Section 215 of BNSS Does Not Shield Forgers of Judicial Documents Created Outside Custody of the Court”

Chemte’s counsel argued that no FIR could have been registered for forgery under Sections 246 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, except through a written complaint by the concerned court, relying on Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Rejecting this contention outright, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [(2005) 4 SCC 370], and held:

“The forged and fabricated order is not part of the record of the learned JMFC, Pune... This is a case where the forged order purported to have been passed by the learned JMFC has been prepared separately.”

“Thus, it is clear that Section 215 of the BNSS will have no application.”

The Court held that since the alleged forged order was never part of any official court record, it did not enjoy the protection of 'custodia legis', and could be prosecuted without requiring the court's direct complaint.

“Two FIRs Are Permissible Where Separate Causes of Action Arise from Same Fabricated Document”

Chemte’s defence argued that there were already two FIRs registered for the same incident—one by the High Court Registry (FIR No.78/2025) and another by the original complainant CTR Industries (FIR No.152/2025)—which allegedly made the latter unsustainable.

The Court, however, drew a clear legal distinction between the two: “Although certain factual aspects are overlapping... the FIR lodged by the Registry is concerning the production of the forged order before this Court, while the FIR lodged with Vimantal Police Station, Pune is concerning the preparation of the forged order to influence FIR No.142 of 2022.”

The Court held that both FIRs arise from different legal consequences of the same forgery, and therefore, both are valid in law.

“Forgery Was Intended to Tamper with Investigation and Mislead the Court: Gravity Justifies Rejection of Anticipatory Bail”

Emphasizing the seriousness of the offence, the Court held that anticipatory bail is not meant for cases involving planned and deliberate judicial forgery.

Justice Jamdar observed: “This is a case where the forged and fabricated order has been prepared to affect the further progress in investigation in FIR No.142 of 2022... only a report under Section 169 of CrPC has been filed and the same is not yet accepted by learned JMFC.”

Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Nikita Jagganath Shetty v. State of Maharashtra [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1489], the Court reminded: “Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not be granted in a routine manner... Grant of interim protection may lead to miscarriage of justice and hamper investigation.”

“Forgery Is Not an Internal Dispute Between Litigants—It Is a Crime Against the Justice System”

The Court noted that the JMFC, Pune, had already confirmed that no such order dated 13th December 2024 had been passed. It was allegedly handwritten in the margins of a final report and produced in court to mislead a Single Judge into closing the bail application.

The JMFC's order stated: “Perusal of the original final report more particularly last page dated 28/07/2023 reveals that this Court did not pass any such order dated 13/12/2024... The margin open space is blank.”

This falsification went so far as to induce the High Court to dispose of the anticipatory bail application on 17th January 2025. The forgery was only discovered upon a subsequent interim application filed by CTR Manufacturing.

“Vimantal Police Station Had Jurisdiction: Preparation of Forged Document Was Aimed at Terminating the FIR Registered There”

On the issue of jurisdiction, the applicant argued that only Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai, had jurisdiction since the forgery was presented in the Bombay High Court.

Rejecting this, the Court held: “The forged and fabricated order... was prepared for the purpose of ensuring that the criminal proceedings initiated by FIR No.142 of 2022 lodged with the Vimantal Police Station... comes to an end.”

“Therefore, prima facie, at this stage, it cannot be said that the Vimantal Police Station, Pune has no jurisdiction to lodge and investigate FIR No.152 of 2025.”

Pre-Arrest Bail Rejected in View of Fraud on Court

Concluding the matter, the Bombay High Court held that the forgery of a judicial order used to derail an active investigation amounts to a serious offence, justifying refusal of pre-arrest bail.

“In the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail to the Applicant.”

The anticipatory bail application was rejected, and interim relief, if any, was declared to be no longer relevant.

Date of Decision: 16th September 2025