The Bombay High Court on Friday pulled up the Mumbai Police for its "casual" investigation into allegations that a lawyer fabricated High Court and other orders and handed them over to his client [Vinaykumar Khatu v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.].
Single-judge Justice RM Joshi noted there was prima facie material to show the orders were false and the investigation ought to have been done in a serious manner.
“There is prima facie material on record to show that these orders are bogus documents. Since it is the case of the fabrication of documents of this (High) Court with an order, the investigation ought to have been done in an utmost serious manner and that all efforts ought to have taken in order to find out as to who has forged the said documents,” the Court said.
Hence, it directed further probe into the matter, with focus on WhatsApp chats relied upon by the accused.
When specifically asked by the Court as to who fabricated or prepared the bogus orders, the investigating officer could not provide those particulars.
“This is a shocking state of affair that the investigation in this case has been done in the most casual manner. There is reason to believe that the investigation was done not to find out the real culprit who prepared the said bogus orders, and that it was done in predetermined manner and in one direction only,” the judge underscored.
The Court was hearing of a bail application filed by the accused, advocate Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu, who was booked on a complaint by his former client.
The client alleged that Khatu gave him what were said to be High Court orders dated October 17, 2022 and December 12, 2022.
The orders were later found to be fabricated along with other allegedly bogus orders.
A charge sheet was filed on January 17, 2025.
Khatu argued that he has been falsely implicated. He highlighted WhatsApp chats with the client which was exchanged much after the alleged delivery of the bogus orders and which showed a discussion on the pendency of the High Court proceedings.
The prosecution opposed bail, pointing to witness statements about the handing over of fabricated orders and the alleged antecedents.
They also contended that WhatsApp material could not be considered evidence without a Section 65B Evidence Act certificate.
Justice Joshi noted that the IO knew the accused had already filed WhatsApp screenshots in earlier anticipatory bail hearings and that these chats were in the charge sheet, but still did not examine them or properly analyse the seized mobile phone.
The judge concluded that if the chats are genuine, the evidence may support the defence theory of false implication. It was mandatory for the IO to investigate whether the fabrication was by the accused-lawyer at the behest of the informant, or by some other person, the judge added.
The High Court cannot not remain a mute spectator when there is apparent fabrication of its own orders coupled with an irresponsible investigation, the judge emphasised.
Hence, he directed the Senior Police Inspector of Azad Maidan Police Station to further investigate and conduct a focused probe into the WhatsApp records produced by the accused
He directed the report to be placed before the court on June 15, when the bail application of the lawyer will also be considered.
Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola with advocates Kaushalya Patil and Smita Sonavane appeared for Khatu.
Additional Public Prosecutor PP Malse appeared for State.
Advocates Rizwan Merchant, Ramiz Shaikh, Suraj Pareshi and Aradhya Sharma appeared for the complainant-client.
[Read Order]