Did judge fabricate case record to deny bail to juvenile in gang-rape case? Rajasthan HC calls for probe

A judicial officer in Rajasthan is in trouble after the Rajasthan High Court observed that he may have fabricated case records in a gang-rape case to justify denying default bail to a juvenile.

The controversy stems from the rejection of the default bail plea of the minor, booked under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, by a Juvenile Justice Board on November 29, 2025 on the premise that the chargesheet was filed on November 21, 2025, within the stipulated period.

As per Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), where investigation is not completed within 90 days in cases punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more, the accused acquires an indefeasible statutory right to be released on bail. The 90-day period in this case expired on November 21, 2025.

Dealing with a revision plea filed by the juvenile, Justice Farjand Ali took note of glaring discrepancies in the case record. The High Court found that there was no judicial order-sheet recording the filing of the chargesheet on November 21, 2025.

“No judicial noting of that date reflects that the chargesheet was taken on record. The only document subsequently relied upon is an endorsement on the reverse of the charge-sheet cover page, made by the learned Magistrate himself, stating that the charge-sheet was presented on 21.11.2025. Significantly, this endorsement is not that of any clerk or reader but is stated to be of the Presiding Officer himself, which renders the circumstance self-conflicting in the absence of a supporting order-sheet,” the Bench noted.

Further, it found that an order sheet dated November 24, 2025 recorded dismissal of a bail application moved by the juvenile. However, it transpires that the bail application was moved only on November 28, 2025 and dismissed on November 29, 2025.

“Thus, a serious chronological inconsistency emerges, how could an order-sheet dated 24.11.2025 record rejection of a bail application and extension of custody till 05.12.2025 when the bail application itself was presented only on 28.11.2025 and rejected on 29.11.2025. A judicial order cannot precede the very event which gives rise to it. The recording of filing and dismissal of a bail application and its rejection in the order sheet of 24.11.2025, when such event happened on 29.11.2025, is wholly incongruous with the judicial chronology. This circumstance significantly strengthens the suspicion that the order-sheet dated 24.11.2025 is ante-dated,” the High Court said.

The Court further noted that when the bail application was presented on November 28, the magistrate asked for the case diary. If the chargesheet was filed on November 21, 2025, what was the need, the Court wondered.

The order dated November 24 - recording purported dismissal of the bail plea - was not even mentioned in the November 29 order when the bail plea was actually dismissed, the High Court order reveals.

Interestingly, the judicial officer on December 8, 2025 acknowledged that a reference to the bail application was wrongly incorporated in the order sheet of November 24. The High Court refused to accept that it was a mere typographical error.

“The matter is not of an inadvertent mis-typing of a word or date; it concerns the recording of a judicial proceeding which, on the face of the record, had not taken place as on 24.11.2025. Further, by recalling the said order on 08.12.2025, the learned Magistrate has, prima facie, not dispelled the doubt but rather fortified it. The recall order unmistakably clarifies that the reference made on 24.11.2025 pertained to the rejection of a bail application which came to be decided on 29.11.2025, and not to any prior bail application. This subsequent clarification, instead of curing the defect, lends credence to the apprehension that the earlier recording was not an innocent mistake but a conscious insertion,” the Bench said.

The High Court had earlier sought a clarification from the judicial officer. However, it was not convinced with the magistrate’s explanation. 

“The judicial function demands calm application of mind, not defensive justification; transparency, not concealment; and candour, not contradiction. If an error has occurred, the dignified course is to acknowledge and correct it in accordance with law. The preparation or reliance upon a note that appears to retrospectively justify an order, or the furnishing of an explanation which attributes a substantive judicial recital to a mere clerical lapse, strikes at the very root of judicial discipline."

Consequently, the Court ordered that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate action, if deemed necessary.

“The Registry is directed to place the matter, along with this order sheet, before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for kind perusal and consideration to take such further action as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to preserve the purity of the judicial process and obviate recurrence of such irregularities in future,” the Court ordered.

Explaining why the matter warrants further inquiry, the Court said that the issue transcends the boundaries of judicial error and raises a grave and disturbing question as to the commission of an act expressly defined as an offence under the penal statute. 

“When material of such nature surfaces before this Court, giving rise to a strong and disturbing impression that, in order to justify a particular course adopted, documents may have been brought into existence which were not originally part of the record, the matter cannot be brushed aside as a mere irregularity but to my mind, it seems to be a case of fabrication of false document prepared only with a view to justify the stand taken. This Court is perceiving a serious doubt in this regard. If such documents were indeed created subsequently, the same may fall within the ambit of making a false document or fabrication of record, an issue of grave concern,” it added.

On the juvenile’s prayer for default bail, the Court prima facie observed that the charge-sheet does not appear to have been filed on November 21, 2025, or at any time prior to filing of the bail plea.

“The sequence of events, coupled with the attendant circumstances, gives rise to a serious apprehension that such proceedings may have been recorded with a view to defeat the statutory right of the petitioner and to lend justification to the action of the concerned Judicial Officer,” the Court said, while ordering the release of the juvenile.

Advocates Ravinder Kumar Singh and Rajpal Singh Rathore represented the juvenile.

Advocates Manju Choudhry, NS Chandawat and SriRam Choudhary appeared for the State.

[Read Order]