No ordinary offence: Court denies bail to 4 accused in forged judicial order case

The Bombay High Court has refused to grant bail to four accused allegedly involved in forging a judge's signature and passing off a fake judicial order as genuine, observing that such acts "attack the credibility of the judicial institution itself".

Justice Amit Borkar, while rejecting the bail pleas, remarked, "The acts alleged in this case are not ordinary offences. Forging a judicial order and misusing the court's official seal are acts that attack the credibility of the judicial institution itself."

The judge further noted that "the involvement of court staff, advocates, and private agents in forging judicial records makes this offence one of high institutional sensitivity".

The case surfaced after Advocate Mahesh Deshmukh enquired about a certified copy application in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, Navi Mumbai. Upon verification, it was found that the signatures of an Assistant Superintendent and Judge Poonam Shivaji Bidkar had been forged on certain documents.

A subsequent probe revealed that genuine entries in the Court's Case Information System (CIS) had been deleted, and fake copies of applications were created between November 2023 and October 2024. Based on these findings, an FIR was registered against unknown persons.

Additional Public Prosecutor Rajashree V. Newton opposed all four bail applications and detailed the alleged role of each accused. Deepak Fad, a junior clerk in the Panvel court's Computer Section, allegedly used the user ID of another clerk to delete the record of a 2022 case and forged documents.

Accused Gauri Kelkar is said to have forged Judge Bidkar's signature at five places on the forged order and the final heirship certificate, while maintaining constant contact with co-accused advocates Amar Patwardhan and Yogesh Kelkar.

Opposing Patwardhan's bail plea, Newton submitted that he had entered into a contract with an accused property agent for Rs 9 lakh to obtain a fraudulent heirship certificate.

She further argued that all the fraudulent work was carried out on Kelkar's laptop and pointed out that accused Sunil Upadhyay had offered extra payment to Patwardhan to secure a fake heirship certificate in the name of one Kamaladevi Gupta through the Panvel Civil Court.

After examining the case material, the court observed, "The court records, whether physical or electronic, are public documents. These records enjoy a presumption of genuineness under law and form the foundation for judicial orders, litigant rights, and enforcement proceedings. Therefore, any act that alters, deletes, or fabricates such official data not only constitutes an offence of forgery under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 but also amounts to an attempt to obstruct the course of justice."

Refusing bail to all four accused, the bench held, "Forgery of a judicial document, particularly one purporting to bear the signature of a sitting Judge, assumes a gravity of its own. It not only involves fabrication of a public document but also a deliberate attempt to mislead litigants and the judicial institution."

Justice Borkar added, "Such acts disturb the entire system of justice, which is founded on authenticity and trust in official records."

Emphasising the significance of judicial integrity, the bench stated, "Courts are repositories of public confidence. Every document issued by a Court is presumed to be genuine and true. If individuals entrusted with maintaining judicial records misuse their access to forge documents or alter data, they attack the very foundation of the justice delivery system. Such conduct cannot be seen as a mere administrative lapse; it amounts to a conscious attempt to defeat the authority of law."

- Ends