Punjab and Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Forgery Case
Custodial Interrogation Deemed Essential in Judicial Summons Forgery Case Involving Rinku Sharma
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Sumeet Goel, has denied anticipatory bail to Rinku Sharma in a case involving serious allegations of forgery and impersonation of judicial summons. The case, registered under FIR No. 45 dated June 9, 2025, at Police Station Cyber Crime, Hisar, pertains to the circulation of forged judicial summons purportedly originating from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. The summons, allegedly created by the accused Deepak Barwal and sent to one Sunil Kumar, bore a fake court stamp and demanded a payment of Rs. 10 lakhs to a woman named Mishi Sharma.
The petitioner, Rinku Sharma, was implicated through the disclosure statement of co-accused Deepak Barwal, who confessed to conspiring with her to create and circulate the forged summons. The court found the allegations against Sharma to be severe, affecting the integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in justice delivery.
Despite the petitioner's argument for anticipatory bail on the grounds of a compromise reached between parties, the court held that the seriousness of the allegations could not be overshadowed by such a compromise. The court emphasized that forgery of judicial summons is a grave offense, striking at the very sanctity of the justice system, and necessitated custodial interrogation for an effective investigation.
The court noted that the investigation is at a crucial stage, requiring the tracing of the origin of the forged documents and the examination of devices used in the conspiracy. Granting anticipatory bail was deemed likely to hinder the ongoing investigation and potentially send a wrong signal to society.
While the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the FIR, the investigation revealed sufficient evidence linking her to the offense. The court emphasized that her alleged involvement in the offense, as supported by the disclosure statement and corroborative evidence, required further investigation through custodial interrogation.
In its judgment, the court cited the Supreme Court's stance in similar cases, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation to effectively uncover the truth and prevent the accused from evading justice under the protection of anticipatory bail.
The court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition, underscoring the gravity of the allegations and the necessity of a principled judicial response to maintain public confidence in the justice system.
Bottom Line:
Custodial interrogation is essential in cases involving serious allegations of forgery of judicial summons, impersonation of a court, and demand for money, as such offenses undermine public confidence in the justice system.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Section 66-D of I.T. Act
Rinku Sharma v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2785754
