Back
Raps Police Over 'Shocking' Probe into Fake Orders – Orders Fresh Scrutiny in Lawyer's Bail Bid
In a strongly worded order that underscores the sanctity of judicial documents, the has lambasted the police for a "casual" and potentially biased investigation into allegations that an advocate forged High Court orders. Justice R. M. Joshi, in a single-judge bench, directed a fresh probe focusing on key WhatsApp chats submitted by the accused, while adjourning the bail application to . The case revolves around claims that lawyer fabricated orders to mislead his client, but the court found glaring investigative lapses.
From Client Trust to Forgery Charges: The Twist in the Tale
, an advocate, faces serious accusations from his former client (the informant and Respondent No. 2). The informant alleged that Khatu handed over fabricated High Court orders dated , and , in SA (ST) No. 22983 of 2022, along with other bogus documents from various authorities. This led to an FIR (Crime No. 308/2025) at under , 420 (cheating), 465-468 (forgery offences), 471 (using forged documents), and 474 (possessing forged documents).
A chargesheet was filed on , but the bail application before the (Criminal Bail Application No. 2659 of 2025) brought investigative shortcomings to light. The court noted evidence that the orders were bogus, demanding a serious probe into who forged them—yet found none.
Defence Fires Back with Chats, Prosecution Cites
Khatu's counsel, led by , argued false implication, pointing to WhatsApp chats between Khatu and the informant after the alleged handover dates. These chats discussed the ongoing High Court proceedings, suggesting the informant knew the cases were pending and undermining the forgery timeline. The chats were even part of the chargesheet and prior bail proceedings.
Opposing bail, for the State and for the informant highlighted witness statements claiming Khatu handed over the fakes. They stressed Khatu's "" with prior similar allegations, dismissed the chats as inadmissible without certification, and cited to argue courts shouldn't interfere in probes.
'Casual' Probe Under Fire: Court's Razor-Sharp Critique
Justice Joshi minced no words on the investigation's quality. Despite the gravity of forging High Court orders , no evidence pinpointed the forger. The Investigating Officer, present in court, couldn't produce any such proof. Worse, the police knew of the WhatsApp chats—seized Khatu's phone but returned it without forensic analysis—yet ignored them.
The court rejected claims that probes are the police's sole prerogative, stressing duty to pursue truth impartially. Referencing paragraph 24 of
D. Venkatasubramaniam
(a Supreme Court caution against casual higher court observations influencing probes), Justice Joshi clarified this wasn't interference but a necessary nudge where
"the investigation was done in predetermined manner and in one direction only."
As media reports echoed,
"the investigation ought to have been done in an utmost serious manner and that all efforts ought to have [been] taken in order to find out as to who has forged the said documents."
Key Observations
"This is a shocking state of affair that the investigation in this case has been done in the most casual manner. There is reason to believe that the investigation was done not to find out the real culprit who prepared the said bogus orders, and that it was done in predetermined manner and in one direction only."(Para 6)
"Inspite [sic] knowledge of possibility of existence of such evidence, the Investigating Officer has avoided to carry out investigation in this regard. It is not expected from investigating agency to conduct investigation in pre-meditated manner..."(Para 7)
"This Court therefore is of opinion that the investigation herein has not been done in appropriate manner."(Para 8)
"When there is apparent fact on record that orders of this Court are fabricated, this Court cannot remain as mute spectator of the irresponsible / casual investigation..."(Para 10)
Fresh Probe Ordered: Bail on Hold, Justice in Focus
The court issued clear directives: - Senior Police Inspector, , to conduct further investigation, especially on the WhatsApp records. - Probe to conclude before the next hearing on . - Report to be filed for review.
Bail remains undecided, stood over pending the probe. This ruling reinforces judicial oversight in high-stakes forgery cases involving court documents, potentially deterring sloppy investigations and ensuring real culprits aren't shielded. For advocates and police alike, it's a reminder: truth-seeking trumps tunnel vision.
