Forwarding a Forged Document Is Not the Same as Forging It: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Alleged U.S. Visa IELTS Scam

“No prima facie evidence of fabrication – merely forwarding documents doesn’t establish criminality” – In a significant judgment clarifying the boundaries of criminal liability in document forgery cases, the Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to an IELTS coaching centre proprietor, accused of facilitating forged documents for a U.S. student visa. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that “merely forwarding documents, absent proof of fabrication, cannot be equated with active forgery.” The Court found that custodial interrogation was unwarranted and protected the applicant from arrest, drawing support from the Supreme Court’s decision in Munna Prasad Verma v. State of UP.

The case involved charges under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120B of IPC), and the application was made under Section 482 BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 CrPC).

“Custodial Interrogation Is Not a Substitute for Weak Evidence”

The FIR was lodged on 2 January 2025, based on a complaint from a U.S. Embassy official. The co-accused, Mandeep Singh, had applied for a U.S. student visa using a fake Bachelor of Science degree, forged bank statements, and a fabricated balance confirmation letter, all allegedly arranged by Jarnail Singh, who ran a licensed coaching and travel consultancy in Kapurthala, Punjab.

While Mandeep Singh admitted to using forged documents and claimed to have paid ₹2,00,000 to the applicant for arranging them, the Court found no evidence that the applicant created the forged materials himself.

Justice Bansal Krishna noted: “The investigations are essentially based on documents already recovered... There is no material on record to suggest that he is a flight risk or is likely to tamper with evidence.” [Para 31]

“WhatsApp Forwards Are Not Proof of Forgery”

The prosecution relied heavily on WhatsApp chats, which showed that the applicant had forwarded PDF versions of the documents to the co-accused. But the Court clarified that this alone could not prove the applicant’s involvement in their creation.

Rejecting the State’s theory of implied participation, the Court emphasized:

“There is no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the Applicant to the actual act of forgery... Chats recovered showed document forwarding, but not fabrication.” [Para 30]

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Munna Prasad Verma v. State of UP, the Court reiterated that reliance on documents later discovered to be forged, without evidence of the actor’s knowledge or participation in their creation, does not establish criminal culpability.

“Previous Non-Appearance Was Medical, Not Malicious”

The Investigating Officer claimed that the applicant failed to join the probe despite being served notices. However, the applicant explained that he was suffering from a leg fracture and joined the investigation on 10.02.2025 and 12.02.2025 after recovering. His conduct thereafter, including furnishing his mobile, printer, and SIM card, was found to be cooperative.

The Court noted: “Though the applicant missed initial summons due to medical condition, he later joined the investigation on several dates... Lack of cooperation is not established on record.” [Para 11]

Moreover, the seizure of relevant materials from the applicant's office, including the printer and mobile phone, rendered further custodial interrogation unnecessary, the Court held.

“Denial of Bail Would Serve No Purpose and Cause Undue Hardship”

The Court found no ongoing need for the applicant’s custody, as all incriminating materials were already seized and no evidence of document fabrication was available. Justice Bansal Krishna observed:

“There is no reason apparent for custody of the Applicant... Bail refusal would amount to undue hardship.” [Para 31]

The Court also drew from the foundational principles laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, noting that bail should be assessed based on factors like gravity of offence, nature of evidence, possibility of absconding, and likelihood of tampering with evidence—none of which were satisfied against the applicant.

Anticipatory Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions

Granting relief under Section 482 BNSS, the Court ordered that in the event of arrest, Jarnail Singh shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to compliance with the following terms:

“The Petitioner shall furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like amount... He shall join investigation as and when required, keep his mobile phone active, and refrain from contacting any witness or tampering with evidence.” [Paras 32–33]

The Court concluded that this balance would protect the petitioner’s rights without compromising the integrity of the ongoing investigation.

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Jarnail Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reaffirms that criminal liability must rest on evidence, not mere suspicion or assumptions of intent. The ruling distinguishes passive forwarding of documents from their active fabrication, and reiterates the importance of protecting individual liberty in the absence of compelling reasons for custodial interrogation.

By emphasizing proportionality, evidentiary clarity, and procedural fairness, the judgment stands as a crucial precedent in anticipatory bail jurisprudence under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and BNSS framework.

Date of Decision: 28 July 2025