Back
J&K&L High Court Transfers Baramulla Fake Decree To Crime Branch; Grants Bail To
The has ordered the transfer of investigation into an alleged in Baramulla from the local police to the Crime Branch, directing the constitution of a to comprehensively probe the . In a separate but connected order, the Court granted to advocate , who was arrested in connection with the case.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, presiding over the matter, emphasized that the allegations go beyond ordinary fraud, warning that the “creation of a and , if ultimately established in accordance with law, would have serious ramifications for the integrity of the justice-delivery system and the sanctity attached to judicial records.”
A Fictitious Proceeding: How a Missing File Led to a Major Probe
The case originated when an official of the , sought of a in a civil suit titled , purportedly decided by the on . Upon searching the record room, the original judicial file could not be traced. However, applications seeking and corresponding entries in the issuance register were found, and the ACB was in possession of photocopies that allegedly bore the signatures of the authorized officer.
The ordered a fact-finding inquiry, which revealed that certain members of the court staff, acting in connivance with beneficiaries—including the petitioner and others—had facilitated the preparation and issuance of fabricated . The inquiry further indicated that outsiders may have acted in concert with court staff in a to fabricate judicial records.
‘Serious Ramifications’: Court Warns of Impact on Judicial Integrity
Justice Parihar noted that the material collected during investigation points to a to fabricate judicial records for the purpose of cheating and using them as genuine. The Court observed that the allegations cannot be treated as merely the irregular procurement of documents.
The investigation revealed that approximately 15 kanals of land were sought to be appropriated through the use of the fictitious decree, with mutations allegedly effected on its strength. The role of revenue officials and a retired judicial officer also came under scrutiny. The retired officer, who was questioned, denied that the disputed decree bore his signatures and stated that the document did not conform to legal procedure.
From Local Police to SIT: Investigation Transferred to Crime Branch
Finding that important investigative leads had not been pursued to their logical conclusion, the Court held that the matter could not appropriately remain with the local police. Justice Parihar directed that the investigation be transferred to the . The , was ordered to constitute an SIT comprising senior officers of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police to carry the investigation to its logical conclusion. The SIT is required to submit periodic status reports to the .
Advocate’s Bail: A New Lawyer Caught in a Web of Alleged
In the connected bail application, the Court considered the case of , a lawyer who had been provisionally enrolled in 2022 and finally enrolled in 2024. She was alleged to have been involved in procuring the fabricated decree and obtaining thereof. The prosecution claimed that she had received ₹50,000 via online transfer and was part of a .
However, the Court noted several mitigating factors: the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, had no previous criminal antecedents, and had brought her suspicion about the documents' genuineness to the ACB's notice. The Court also considered that she was the mother of a 12-month-old breastfeeding infant and had developed a depressive condition while in custody.
Justice Parihar observed, “it was the petitioner who brought to the notice of the ACB her apprehension regarding the genuineness of the Court documents.” He further stated that the possibility of her being drawn into the process without full knowledge could not be ruled out given her nascent stage in the profession.
Key Conditions for Interim Release
The Court granted pending completion of the investigation, subject to the petitioner furnishing a and of ₹1 lakh each to the satisfaction of the . The will remain in force until the filing of the , after which the Trial Court will decide on further custody.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not prejudice the investigation or subsequent proceedings.
This judgment underscores the High Court’s commitment to preserving the while balancing the personal liberty of an accused, especially one who is a young mother and a new entrant to the legal profession.
