HC Transfers Baramulla Fake Court Decree Probe to Crime Branch; Advocate Gets Interim Bail, several other accused including court, revenue officials remain arrested

Court orders SIT after investigation throws up alleged fabrication of judicial records, revenue mutations and involvement of court and revenue officials

 

UMAR RASHID

 

 

Srinagar, September 26: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has transferred the investigation into an alleged fake decree and judicial-record fabrication case registered under FIR No. 99/2026 at Police Station Baramulla to the Crime Branch Kashmir, observing that the matter requires a fair, impartial and comprehensive probe by a specialised agency.

 

Justice Sanjay Parihar, while passing the order on September 22, directed the Inspector General of Crimes, Kashmir, to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising senior officers of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police to carry out further investigation and take the case to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.

 

The Court also directed the Crime Branch to submit periodic status reports to the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court, while requiring the Inspector General of Crimes, Kashmir, to supervise the investigation to ensure that it remains fair, objective and expeditious.

 

The case originated from a complaint lodged by the Sub-Judge (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class), Baramulla, after an Anti-Corruption Bureau official sought certified copies of a purported final order, decree and compromise relating to a civil suit titled “Rabia Rashid vs. Mst. Abida Malik”, allegedly decided by the Sub-Judge, Baramulla, on January 22, 2021.

 

When the judicial record was searched, the original file could not be traced. Although applications for certified copies and corresponding entries in the issuance register were found, the absence of the original judicial file raised serious doubts regarding the genuineness and authenticity of the documents supplied to the ACB. The Principal District Judge, Baramulla, subsequently ordered a fact-finding inquiry by the Additional District Judge.

 

According to the High Court order, the preliminary inquiry prima facie indicated that certain members of the court staff, allegedly acting in connivance with beneficiaries and other persons interested in the purported decree, had facilitated the preparation and issuance of fabricated certified copies. The inquiry also indicated that signatures of the officer authorised to issue certified copies were allegedly procured through deception.

 

The allegations involve purported fabrication of a decree dated January 22, 2021, with the Court noting allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery of judicial records, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of forged documents as genuine and alleged criminal breach of trust by public servants.

 

The High Court recorded that several accused had already been arrested during the investigation, including a practicing advocate from Baramulla, revenue officlas, and principal accused Manzoor Ahmad Ganie.

 

The investigating agency relied upon a statement attributed to Ganie, recorded before a Magistrate, alleging that the purported decree had been procured through co-accused persons, including court staff and, in particular, Muzaffar Ahmad Lone. The investigation also indicated that mutations relating to approximately seven kanals of land had allegedly been effected on the strength of the purported decree.

 

The mutation register was subsequently seized, leading to the arrest of a revenue official. According to the prosecution material placed before the Court, the role of certain revenue officials in the preparation, procurement and use of the purported forged decree and in effecting mutation entries had also come under scrutiny.

 

Significantly, the Court recorded that the purported forged decree itself had **not yet been recovered**, although an electronic device allegedly used in preparing the fabricated document was stated to have been recovered.

 

The case diary placed before the High Court also showed that the role of a retired judicial officer had come under investigation. The officer was questioned and reportedly answered 121 questions put by the investigating agency.

 

According to the order, the retired officer denied that the disputed decree bore his signatures and disclaimed knowledge of it. He was also stated to have acknowledged that the purported decree did not conform to the prescribed legal procedure.

 

At the same time, the investigating agency relied upon a disclosure attributed to Manzoor Ahmad Ganie, according to which court employee Muzaffar Ahmad Lone had allegedly claimed that he was in contact with the concerned former judicial officer and could procure his signatures on the purported decree.

 

The High Court, however, made clear that these allegations would have to be tested and established through legally admissible evidence.

 

The investigation, as recorded in the order, concerns allegations that approximately 15 kanals of land were sought to be appropriated through fabrication and use of a purported decree followed by consequential alteration of revenue records. The land is stated in the order to be evacuee property. However, independent sources, revealed that the land is Custodian Land.

 

The Court identified, among other parcels, 10 kanals and 13 marlas under Khasra No. 3157/2044 and Mutation No. 2258 at Mouza Khanpora, Baramulla, and five kanals under Khasra No. 5288/811 and Mutation No. 4070 at Ushkura, Baramulla.

 

The Court specifically cautioned that these were matters still under investigation and should not be understood as concluded findings regarding the criminal liability of any person.

 

The Court further observed that certain mutation entries concerning the land allegedly benefiting the accused had not yet been comprehensively investigated, with the record suggesting that some entries were purportedly made on the basis of an order attributed to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla.

 

After examining the case diaries and the progress of the investigation, the High Court said significant investigative leads remained to be pursued, including those concerning the former judicial officer and higher revenue officials.

 

The Court held that the entire transaction required comprehensive investigation and that the role of every person connected with the alleged conspiracy, fabrication of judicial records and their consequential use needed to be examined in accordance with law.

 

It consequently held that the investigation could not appropriately be left to the local police and transferred FIR No. 99/2026 to the Crime Branch Agency of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

The Court also dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, observing that the material available at this stage provided sufficient basis for continuation of the investigation. It stressed that the precise extent of land covered by the mutations and the circumstances in which the entries were made would remain matters for investigation and, if necessary, adjudication by the competent court.

 

In the connected bail application, the High Court granted interim bail to advocate Tabinda Nazir, who had been arrested in the case.

 

The order records that Nazir was provisionally enrolled as an advocate in February 2022 and finally enrolled in September 2024. She had represented accused Rabia Rashid in a subsequent civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction concerning ownership rights.

 

The prosecution alleged that Nazir was involved in procurement and subsequent use of the purported decree dated January 22, 2021, and was instrumental in obtaining a certified copy. It further alleged that she had entered into a conspiracy with co-accused persons for procuring court orders relating to land.

 

According to the prosecution case recorded by the Court, co-accused Raja Shabir and Ajaz Ahmad allegedly arranged a meeting between Manzoor Ahmad Ganie and the advocate. It was alleged that she represented that separate orders could be procured for 14 kanals of land in two portions and demanded ₹8 lakh for each order.

 

The investigation was stated to have revealed an online transfer of ₹50,000 into her account, besides allegations of further cash payments. The defence disputed the allegations and maintained that the ₹50,000 was professional fee for representing her client in the subsequent civil proceedings.

 

The prosecution further relied upon a statement attributed to Manzoor Ahmad Ganie alleging that ₹14 lakh was required for procurement of the court order and that ₹4.25 lakh had allegedly already been paid to the advocate. Her counsel disputed this claim and maintained that she had received only ₹50,000 as professional fees.

 

 

While considering the bail plea, the High Court noted that Nazir was relatively new to the legal profession and that the civil suit she subsequently conducted on behalf of Rabia Rashid had been found during investigation to be a genuine proceeding.

 

The Court said the question whether Nazir knew that the title asserted by Rabia Rashid was founded upon the disputed documents remained a matter for investigation.

 

The Court also noted that Nazir had been arrested on September 9, 2026, had undergone approximately 15 days of custodial interrogation, and had no previous criminal antecedents apparent from the material before it. Her cooperation with the investigation was also taken into consideration.

 

Of particular significance to the bail decision was material indicating that Nazir had herself brought her apprehension regarding the genuineness of the court documents to the notice of the ACB, following which the agency sought verification of the purported orders and the alleged fabrication came to light.

 

The High Court, however, clarified that the evidentiary value and legal effect of this circumstance would remain open for determination during investigation and trial.

 

The Court expressly stated that it was not expressing any final opinion on the merits of the allegations. It granted Nazir interim bail pending completion of the investigation, subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety bond of ₹1 lakh each to the satisfaction of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Baramulla. The interim bail will remain in force until filing of the charge-sheet, after which her further appearance and custody will be governed by orders of the trial court.