Duty of litigants to verify the authenticity of court orders and the passing of directions for stakeholders to exercise caution and diligence in checking the authenticity of court orders

ORDER

% 14.03.2024

1. This matter has been taken up suo-motu on mentioning before this Court by Smt. Saira Bano.

2. Smt. Saira Bano has also produced her Aadhaar Card in token of proving her identity which is taken on record. She states that her daughter Shabnam is in judicial custody in case FIR No. 22/2019, registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur under Sections 366A/372/370A/420/ 506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. She further states that Ms. ‘X’, who is a jail visiting advocate and was pursuing the aforesaid matter, had given an order of this Court to her daughter in jail, in which it was mentioned that the order on her bail application had been reserved after hearing arguments on 18.11.2023. However, Smt. Saira Bano states that when she had visited her daughter in the jail, her daughter had asked her to enquire about the status of her bail application. She also mentions that since the order in the bail application was reserved by this Court, she had come to this Court to find out about the outcome.

3. A detailed statement of Smt. Saira Bano has been recorded by this Court separately containing all the relevant details disclosed by her, in the presence of Sh. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Criminal) and Sh. Sanjeev Bhandari, Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal).

4. Today, Smt. Saira Bano, who has appeared before this Court, has handed over a copy of an order, purported to have been passed by this Court in one BAIL APPLN. 6753/2023, on 18.11.2023, titled ‘Shabnam v. State of NCT of Delhi’, vide which arguments were allegedly heard by this Court and the order was reserved.

5. This Court, being surprised about the pendency of any such bail application reserved for orders before this Court for allegedly four months had checked the records of the Court and had found that the details of such application or arguments being heard in this application is not reflected in the records of this Court.

6. Upon further checking the records, it has been found that no bail application with number 6753/2023 has been filed before this Court ever, and that the alleged date of the hearing of bail application and reserving of the bail order is mentioned as 18.11.2023 which happens to be Saturday i.e. a holiday.

7. Reply and details with regard to any bail application being filed with number 6753/2023 has also been obtained from the Registry today wherein it has been submitted that in the year 2023, no such Bail Application was filed before the Delhi High Court.

8. It also transpired during further inquiry by this Court with its Court staff that on 18.09.2023, an order was passed by this Court, in one CRL.M.C. (details not being mentioned in this order), and the judgment had been reserved after hearing arguments. The said CRL.M.C. has already been finally disposed of on 17.10.2023. This Court had looked into this order dated 18.09.2023 since the item number of the said order and the order produced before this Court was similar. The same is also not being disclosed in this order.

9. A bare perusal of two orders i.e. the copy of alleged order dated 18.11.2023 purportedly passed in BAIL APPLN. 6753/2023 produced before this Court by Smt. Saira Bano, and the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by this Court in the aforesaid CRL.M.C. reveals that the alleged order dated 18.11.2023 is a forged and fabricated document, which has been prepared after editing some details of the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by this Court in the aforesaid CRL.M.C. The numbers of the CRL.M.A. mentioned in alleged order dated 18.11.2023 as well as the name of counsel for respondent have not been edited and they are same as those mentioned in original order dated 18.09.2023 passed by this Court. The item number mentioned on the margin of the order also remains the same in both orders and has not been changed. The name of counsel for the applicant/petitioner in these two orders is different. However, this Court also notes that the jail visiting advocate Ms. ‘X’, w