Forging Court Summons Erodes Public Trust in Judiciary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail Despite Claimed Compromise
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel denied pre-arrest bail to a woman accused of fabricating judicial summons, stressing that such acts “have serious ramifications on public confidence in the judiciary and undermine public trust.” The petitioner was implicated on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure, which linked her to forged summons purportedly issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. The documents, bearing a fictitious UID number, directed a man’s appearance on 12 June 2025 during the court’s summer recess and included a demand for ₹10 lakh allegedly as maintenance for one Mishi Sharma.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case arising from a complaint lodged by a court official attached to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. The complaint concerned the circulation of forged judicial summons sent via WhatsApp to a man named Sunil Kumar. These forged documents, bearing a fake court stamp and a fictitious UID number, directed Sunil to appear before the court on 12 June 2025, a date falling during the court’s summer vacation, and also referred to a payment demand of ₹10 lakh to a woman named Mishi Sharma, described as maintenance. Upon verification, court authorities and the local police confirmed that no such summons or related proceedings existed.
The police investigation led to the arrest of co-accused Deepak Berwal, whose disclosure statement implicated Rinku Sharma, also known as Mishi Sharma, alleging that she had conspired in the offence due to a matrimonial dispute with Abhishek, the son of Sunil. The police recovered screenshots from Deepak's phone showing WhatsApp conversations purportedly between Rinku Sharma and Deepak, where she allegedly instructed him to send the forged summons to Sunil and demand Rs. 10 lakhs.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Rinku Sharma was not named in the FIR and her implication arose solely from the co-accused’s statement, which lacked corroborative evidence. It was further submitted that she is a law graduate and would not risk her professional integrity by engaging in such acts. Counsel maintained that the screenshots were not produced on record and that no forged summons were recovered from her possession. The petitioner also claimed to have been a victim of blackmail and extortion by Abhishek and his cousin, Parveen, and that a separate FIR (No. 397/2025) had been lodged by her against them. The defence contended that the current FIR was a counter-blast aimed at dissuading her from pursuing those legal remedies.
Conversely, the State, represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police Sumit Kumar, filed an affidavit affirming the co-accused’s disclosure statement and the recovery of WhatsApp screenshots linking the petitioner to the offence. The prosecution contended that custodial interrogation was essential to recover the devices used, ascertain the origin of the forged summons, and unearth any larger conspiracy.
The Court noted that "the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature" and that granting anticipatory bail at this stage "is likely to hamper the ongoing investigation." The Court relied on precedents from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. (2022) 4 RCR (Criminal) 977, observing that anticipatory bail should not be granted when serious allegations exist and effective investigation requires custodial interrogation.
Justice Goel recorded that the matter was "not only serious but also affects the dignity of judicial institutions and undermines the public confidence in the administration of justice." Referring to the disclosure statement and corroborative digital evidence, the Court held that "such evidence cannot be brushed aside as wholly unreliable and the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would hamper the investigation."
Addressing the petitioner’s claim of compromise between the parties, the Court observed 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 partake the character of affecting the sanctity of the justice delivery system." The Bench further remarked that "forging judicial summons is an offence which has serious ramifications on public confidence in the judiciary and undermines public trust and faith in the justice delivery system."
The Court dismissed the argument that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187, noting that "custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code." Justice Goel further quoted, "Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated." The Court stressed that "responsible police officers would conduct themselves in the task of disinterring offences and would not conduct themselves as offenders."
Justice Goel observed that the evidence collected thus far, including the digital records and co-accused’s disclosure, prima facie established the petitioner’s connection to the offence. The Court recorded: "The allegations, if found to be true, reflect a deliberate attempt to forge judicial summons, impersonate a court, and demand money which strikes at the sanctity of the justice system."
Justice Goel stated: "In view of the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the offence, the stage of the investigation, and the necessity of ensuring a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand."
"Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon the merits of the case or the investigation. The instant petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana; Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate
Case Title: Rinku Sharma vs. State of Haryana
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:136284
Case Number: CRM-M-37719-2025
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
