Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
What is the appropriate course of further investigation when there are allegations of fabrication of court orders and related documents? What is the court’s stance on judicial interference in an ongoing police investigation when forged documents are alleged? What are the directions for further investigation and reporting issued by the court in relation to forged orders and WhatsApp communications?
Key Points: - The court notes allegations that orders purportedly issued by this Court are fabricated and that investigation into this fabrication should be conducted seriously and thoroughly (!) (!) . - There is critique of the adequacy and manner of the ongoing investigation, including failure to identify who forged the documents and the need to investigate WhatsApp communications and related devices (!) (!) (!) . - The court directs further investigation focusing on documents/WhatsApp records presented by the Applicant and orders the Senior Police Inspector of Azad Maidan Police to conduct it, with a deadline before the next hearing and reporting by 15th June, 2026 (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court clarifies it is not endorsing unnecessary interference, but due to fabrication allegations, it intervenes to ensure proper investigation to uncover the true culprits (!) (!) . - The order emphasizes maintaining the majesty of law and bringing the actual fabricator to book; it references the Supreme Court precedent regarding appropriate exercise of inherent powers and the need for meaningful investigations in such circumstances (!) (!) . - The case involves bail-related proceedings and anticipatory bail considerations, including arguments about admissibility and evidence of WhatsApp chats, which the court scrutinizes in light of investigation adequacy (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The procedural outcome includes over-arching directions for completion of investigation before a specified date and submission of a report for Court consideration (!) (!) . - The document identifies the offences in the FIR and subsequent charge-sheet context related to fabrication and forgery of court documents (!) . - The applicant is an advocate; informant-client relationship is part of the context of the fabrication allegations (!) .
Prasad IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
926 CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2659 OF 2025 Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu ...Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Sudeep Pasbola a/w Kaushalya Patil and Smita Sonavane, for the Applicant.
Mr. P.P. Malse, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Rizwan Merchant a/w Ramiz Shaikh, Suraj Pareshi and Aradhya Sharma, for the Respondent No.2.
Ms. Neelima Kulkarni, AACP Railway, present.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 08th MAY, 2026.
PC:-
1. This is a case wherein there is an allegation against the present Applicant that he fabricated the orders of this Court as well as the orders passed by other authorities and submitted the same to the Informant. The Applicant is an Advocate and Informant was his client. Amongst the other contentions, it is the case of the Informant that on or before12th December, 2022, orders dated 17th October, 2022 and 12th December, 2022, passed in SA (ST) No.22983 of 2022 were given by the Applicant to the Informant. Amongst the other contentions the Informant claims that later on it was revealed that the said orders are fabricated documents. Similar allegations are made in re
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
