SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Tuesday refused to quash an FIR concerning the alleged fabrication of a civil court decree and its use for securing mutations over land in Baramulla, holding that there was sufficient material at this stage to continue the investigation, while simultaneously granting interim bail to advocate Tabinda Nazir, one of the accused in the case. The court also transferred the investigation from the local police to the J&K Crime Branch and directed the Inspector General of Crimes, Kashmir, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of senior police officers to conduct a comprehensive probe into the alleged conspiracy involving judicial and revenue records.
Justice Sanjay Parihar passed the order on September 22, 2026, in Bail App No. 169/2026 and connected CRM(M) No. 551/2026, arising out of FIR No. 99/2026 registered at Police Station Baramulla under Sections 61(2), 316(5), 318(4), 337, 339 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Tabinda Nazir was represented by advocates Shafqat Nazir, Atufa Farooq and Henna Baqal in the bail proceedings, while Advocate Sheikh Manzoor appeared for her in CRM(M) No. 551/2026. The Union Territory was represented by Deputy Advocate General Hakim Aman Ali.
The High Court was dealing with a case which began with the discovery that a purported judicial decree relating to a civil suit titled “Rabia Rashid v. Abida Malik”, allegedly decided by the Sub-Judge, Baramulla, on January 22, 2021, could not be traced in the court’s original records.
According to the order, an Anti-Corruption Bureau official at Baramulla on June 13, 2026 sought certified copies of the final order, decree, compromise and other documents purportedly relating to the suit. When the record room was searched, the original judicial file could not be found. The record-room authorities informed the ACB official that he was in possession of photocopies purportedly issued as certified or verified copies of the judgment and decree on June 28, 2025 and bearing the signatures of the officer authorised to issue them.
Although applications purportedly seeking certified copies and corresponding entries in the issuance register were found in the record room, the absence of the original judicial file raised doubts about the authenticity of the documents.
The matter was brought before the Principal District Judge, Baramulla, who ordered a fact-finding inquiry by the Additional District Judge. Following that inquiry, a complaint was lodged with the police by the Sub-Judge, Baramulla.
The preliminary inquiry, as recorded by the High Court, prima facie suggested that certain court employees had allegedly acted in connivance with beneficiaries and other persons interested in the purported judgment and decree to facilitate preparation and issuance of fabricated certified copies.
The order names Abdul Ahad Lone, Senior Assistant, and the then Record Keeper/Dealing Assistant Nisar Ahmad Bhat, along with Orderlies Bashir Ahmad Peer and others, in connection with the allegations. The inquiry also suggested that outsiders and alleged beneficiaries may have acted in concert with court staff to fabricate judicial records and procure certified copies.
The High Court said the allegations covered criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery of judicial records, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of forged documents as genuine and criminal breach of trust by public servants, among other offences that could emerge during investigation.
Probe reveals arrests, land mutations
The court had already observed in an August 5, 2026 order that the allegations were of a grave nature because they directly concerned the sanctity of judicial records and administration of justice. It therefore considered a thorough and professional investigation necessary.
The latest order records that several accused had subsequently been arrested, including a practicing advocate from Baramulla. One of the principal accused, Manzoor Ahmad Ganie, was also arrested.
According to the investigating agency, Ganie made a statement before a Magistrate in which he allegedly disclosed that the purported decree had been procured through co-accused persons, including court staff and particularly Muzaffar Ahmad Lone. The court noted that mutations involving approximately seven kanals of land were allegedly 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, the investigation had brought under scrutiny the role of certain revenue officials in preparing, procuring and using the purported forged decree and in making mutation entries on its basis.
However, the purported forged decree itself had not yet been recovered. An electronic device allegedly used to prepare the fabricated document was stated to have been recovered.
The investigation had also brought the role of a retired judicial officer under scrutiny. The officer was questioned and reportedly answered 121 questions put to him by investigators. According to the order, he denied that the disputed decree carried his signatures and disclaimed knowledge of it. He also reportedly stated that the purported decree did not conform to prescribed legal procedure.
The High Court, however, cautioned that these aspects would have to be investigated strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of legally admissible evidence.
“Viewed in the aforesaid backdrop, the allegations cannot be treated as involving merely the irregular procurement of documents,” Justice Parihar observed, adding that the material collected so far “prima facie points towards an alleged conspiracy to fabricate judicial records for the purpose of cheating and thereafter to use such fabricated records as genuine.”
The investigation also relied upon a disclosure attributed to Ganie that he had been informed by co-accused Muzaffar Ahmad Lone that Rs 14 lakh was required for arranging the court order. The court specifically noted that this allegation, like other disclosures made during the investigation, would have to be tested and established through legally admissible evidence.
The court said the investigation had reached the stage where approximately 15 kanals of land were allegedly sought to be appropriated through fabrication and use of a fictitious decree, followed by changes in revenue records. The land was stated to be evacuee property.
The land under scrutiny included 10 kanals and 13 marlas under Khasra No. 3157/2044 and Mutation No. 2258 at Mouza Khanpora, Baramulla, besides five kanals under Khasra No. 5288/811 and Mutation No. 4070 at Ushkura, Baramulla.
The court stressed that these remained matters under investigation and were not concluded findings regarding the criminal liability of any person.
Court declines to quash FIR against Tabinda
Tabinda Nazir, who is the wife of accused Manzoor Ahmad Ganie, had challenged the FIR and sought its quashing.
The prosecution case, as recorded by the court, was that she had been projected as a beneficiary of the purported compromise decrees and consequential revenue entries. Nazir, however, maintained that she was innocent and had been falsely implicated.
The High Court said that, at the present stage, it could not accept her contention that the registration and continuation of the FIR against her constituted an abuse of the process of law.
The court also rejected, at this stage, the contention that the certified copies had been obtained through the ordinary legal process. According to the investigation, no civil suit corresponding to the purported 2021 proceeding had been instituted by Nazir and the decree on which reliance was being placed was not genuine.
“These circumstances furnish sufficient material for continuation of the investigation against the petitioner,” the court held.
The investigation further indicated that two mutations had allegedly been attested in Nazir’s name on the strength of purported decrees dated December 24, 2020 and January 22, 2021. The court said the precise extent of land covered by those mutations, the underlying documents and the circumstances in which the entries were made remained matters for investigation.
On that basis, the High Court found no ground to interfere with the investigation or quash FIR No. 99/2026.
“The petition is, accordingly, dismissed,” Justice Parihar ordered.
Lawyer says she was unwittingly used
The order records that Nazir was provisionally enrolled as an advocate on February 21, 2022 and finally enrolled on September 19, 2024. During her professional practice, she had represented Rabia Rashid in a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction in connection with alleged ownership rights.
The prosecution alleged that Nazir was involved in procurement and subsequent use of the purported January 22, 2021 decree and was instrumental in obtaining a certified copy.
According to the prosecution case, co-accused Raja Shabir and Ajaz Ahmad arranged a meeting between Manzoor Ahmad Ganie and Nazir. She allegedly represented that she could procure separate orders concerning 14 kanals of land, divided into two portions of seven kanals each, for Rs 8 lakh for each order. The investigation allegedly found an online transfer of Rs 50,000 into her account and alleged further cash payments.
The defence strongly disputed these allegations.
Her counsel submitted that Nazir had played no role in preparing or fabricating the disputed documents and had merely been asked to obtain certified copies. The defence further argued that she was the person who had brought her suspicion about the genuineness of the documents to the notice of the ACB.
It was also submitted that, as a relatively new member of the legal profession, she had been unwittingly used by co-accused persons and was not privy to any alleged conspiracy. The Rs 50,000 received by her, according to the defence, was legitimate professional fees for representing her client in subsequent civil proceedings.
The prosecution opposed bail, arguing that her custodial presence was required because of her alleged role as an important constituent of the conspiracy involving fabrication and procurement of false court orders and decrees.
The prosecution relied upon the statement attributed to Ganie that Rs 14 lakh was allegedly required for procurement of the court order and that Rs 4.25 lakh had allegedly already been paid to Nazir. Her counsel disputed this and maintained that she had received only Rs 50,000 as professional fees.
Court grants interim bail
While refusing to quash the FIR, the court took a different view on Nazir’s immediate custody and granted her interim bail pending completion of the investigation.
Justice Parihar noted that Nazir was at the “nascent stage of her professional career”, having been provisionally enrolled in 2022 and finally enrolled in 2024. The court said the possibility that she might not have been fully conversant with all procedural aspects relating to procurement of certified copies “cannot, at this stage, be altogether excluded.”
The court also noted that the subsequent civil suit filed by Nazir on behalf of Rabia Rashid had been found during investigation to be a genuine proceeding. The suit sought declaration and permanent injunction and involved a compromise concerning transfer of ownership rights. However, the Additional District Judge, Baramulla, by judgment dated October 23, 2024, declined to recognise transfer of ownership in the absence of a duly executed conveyance.
Justice Parihar said whether Nazir knew that the title claimed by Rabia Rashid was founded upon disputed documents remained a matter for investigation.
The court also noted that Nazir had been arrested on September 9, 2026 after initially seeking anticipatory bail and had undergone approximately 15 days of custodial interrogation. She had also stated that she was the mother of a 12-month-old breastfeeding daughter.
The investigating officer told the court that Nazir was being kept separately and permitted to breastfeed her child at regular intervals. Her counsel also submitted that she had joined and cooperated with the investigation, a factual assertion which the respondent did not seriously dispute.
The court further noted that she had no previous criminal antecedents on the material before it.
“At the same time, there can be no manner of doubt that the allegations are grave and concern the alleged falsification and fabrication of judicial records,” the court said, adding that the seriousness was heightened by her status as a member of the legal profession.
At the same time, Justice Parihar said the material indicated that Nazir had cooperated with the investigation and that she had been taken into custody after a statement by a co-accused allegedly implicated her.
The court also noted that she had allegedly brought her apprehension about the genuineness of the court documents to the notice of the ACB, following which the ACB sought verification and certified copies, eventually leading to discovery of the alleged fabrication. The court said the evidentiary value of that circumstance would have to be determined during investigation and trial.
Making it clear that it was not deciding the merits of the criminal allegations, the High Court said a bail court was not required to conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or record definitive findings regarding guilt or innocence.
“Having regard to the totality of the circumstances noticed above,” including the custody already undergone, cooperation with the investigation, absence of previous criminal antecedents and her personal circumstances, the court admitted Nazir to interim bail pending completion of the investigation.
She was directed to furnish a surety bond of Rs 1 lakh and a personal bond of the same amount 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.
Investigation handed over to Crime Branch
The High Court simultaneously ordered a major change in the investigation.
It said the investigation was at a “sensitive and crucial stage” and that the non-recovery of the alleged forged documents, along with investigative leads that had not yet been pursued to their logical conclusion, warranted further supervision and direction.
The court said the matter could not appropriately be left with the local police and ordered that the investigation in FIR No. 99/2026 be transferred to the Crime Branch of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Inspector General of Crimes, Kashmir, has been directed to constitute an SIT comprising senior officers of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police. The SIT has been tasked with carrying out further investigation and taking it to its logical conclusion strictly in accordance with law.
The Inspector General of Crimes, Kashmir, has also been directed to supervise the investigation to ensure that it is conducted “fairly, objectively and expeditiously, uninfluenced by any extraneous consideration”. The SIT will submit periodic status reports to the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court, who will retain them on record and place them before the court whenever directed.
The order was pronounced at Srinagar on September 22, 2026 by Justice Sanjay Parihar.
