Forging Court Summons Undermines Public Trust In Judiciary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail Despite Compromise

Emphasizing the seriousness of forging judicial documents, the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied pre-arrest bail to a woman accused of fabricating a court summons, stating that such acts "have serious ramifications on public confidence in judiciary and undermines public trust."

The petitioner was booked on the basis of disclosure statement of a co-accused who allegedly forged judicial summons purportedly issued by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, bearing a fictitious UID number and directed appearance of a man in a case on 12.06.2025, a date falling during summer vacations. The forged summons also contained reference to payment of Rs.10 lakhs to one Mishi Sharma, allegedly as maintenance.

Justice Sumeet Goel refusing to grant relief on the ground that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties, the Court opined that, "such a submission is of no avail in the present case. The allegations pertain to the preparation and circulation of forged judicial summons which is a grave offence striking at the very sanctity of the justice delivery system."

The Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the offence of this nature not only affect the individual but also create of sense of insecurity in the community at large. Protection of such offenders at the stage of investigation would send a wrong signal to society and embolden others to indulge in similar unlawful activities, the judge added.

It said that, the power under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is meant to protect innocent persons from unnecessary harassment and false implication but the same cannot be extended to those against whom there are prima facie serious allegations supported by material collected during investigation.

The Court pointed that the allegations, if found to be true, reflect a deliberate attempt to forged the judicial summons, impersonation of a Court and demand of money which strikes at the sanctity of the justice system. Such offences necessitate a strong and principled judicial response to prevent their recurrence.

The plea was filed by one Rinku Sharma seeking grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319, 336(3), 337, 340 of BNS, 2023 and Section 66- D of I.T. Act at Police Station Cyber Crime.

After hearing the submissions the Court opined that, "the offence of this nature is serious requires custodial interrogation of the petitioner in order to trace the origin of the forged documents, examine the devices used for the same, to unearth the larger conspiracy, if any and to ascertain the role of each accused."

Furthermore, it noted that no cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.

Justice Goel highlighted that, the disclosure statement of the co-accused specifically implicates the petitioner as the source of the forged summons. Screenshots retrieved from the device of co-accused corroborates this version.

The investigation is at nascent stage. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests, added the Court.

Considering the gravity of allegation, the Court refused to grant the relief.

Title: Rinku Sharma v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 397

Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate for the complainant.

Click here to read order