Supreme Court Cuts Five-Year Sentence to Time Served in Forged Bail Document Case

A Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria reduced a five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence to the period already undergone, applying proportionality in sentencing.

The Supreme Court on 23 June 2026 partly allowed a criminal appeal filed by Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan, a man convicted for producing a forged land rights document before a judicial magistrate in 2014 to furnish bail surety on behalf of another accused. While leaving the conviction under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 intact, a Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria reduced the substantive sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone. The Court directed the appellant's immediate release, subject to payment of the fine imposed by the Trial Court. The decision turns on the Court's application of proportionality in sentencing, weighing the seriousness of forgery in judicial proceedings against a decade of criminal proceedings, the absence of prior or subsequent criminal antecedents, and the limited harm caused by the offence.

How the Dispute Reached the Court

On 15 September 2014, the appellant appeared before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa, in connection with Criminal Case No. 07 of 2014. He produced a Bhu Adhikar Rin Pustika (Land Rights and Loan Book) bearing No. 943/0124451, purportedly issued on 31 January 2013, to furnish surety for an accused named Mukesh Dahiya. The document reflected agricultural land at Village Amirati, Tehsil Gurh, District Rewa, standing in the name of Naimuddin Khan son of Allauddin Khan.

During scrutiny of the document in the bail proceedings, the Judicial Magistrate noticed that page 10 appeared immediately after page 2, raising suspicion about its genuineness. The appellant could not satisfactorily explain the anomaly. The Magistrate directed inquiry, and FIR No. 562 of 2014 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rewa under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

Investigation included verification of the disputed document with revenue authorities. The identity of the appellant was described variously during investigation as “Naimuddin Khan son of Allauddin Khan”, “Naimuddin Khan son of Allauddin Khan alias Raheesh Khan”, and “Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin son of Raheesh Khan”. A charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

The Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, by judgment dated 6 January 2024, acquitted co-accused Ashish Garg but convicted the appellant under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. He was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment on each count, with a fine of Rs. 1,000 under each head, and the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2024. He argued material discrepancies in the prosecution's case regarding his identity and questioned the reliability of the evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 30 April 2025, affirming both conviction and sentence. It held that the prosecution had established the charges on reliable oral and documentary evidence and that the acquittal of the co-accused did not entitle the appellant to acquittal as a matter of course.

The appellant then filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 19486 of 2025 before the Supreme Court. By order dated 21 November 2025, the Court issued notice limited to the question of quantum of sentence. Leave was granted and the matter was taken up as Criminal Appeal No. 3081 of 2026. The conviction was not open for reconsideration.

Arguments on Sentence

Counsel for the appellant urged that the occurrence dated back to 2014 and the appellant had faced criminal proceedings for over a decade. He was not alleged to be a habitual offender, and no subsequent criminal antecedents had been placed before the Court. On these grounds, it was submitted that the five-year sentence warranted reconsideration.

The State countered that the offence was serious: the appellant had used a forged revenue document before a court of law to secure bail. Counsel for the State argued that offences involving forgery and use of forged documents in judicial proceedings strike at the purity of the administration of justice and do not warrant leniency.

The Court's Reasoning on Proportionality

The Court accepted the State's position that forgery in judicial proceedings is serious. It observed that Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC deal with offences that undermine the authenticity and sanctity of public and legal documents, and that use of forged documents before a court cannot be viewed lightly.

However, the Court held that sentencing requires balancing the nature of the offence against the attendant facts and circumstances, the role of the accused, the period of incarceration undergone, the passage of time, and other mitigating circumstances. It stated that “the principle of proportionality remains central to the sentencing process” and that sentencing cannot be reduced to a purely retributive exercise divorced from the factual matrix and overall circumstances of the offender.

The Court identified several factors in the appellant's favour. First, the occurrence was from 2014 and the appellant had remained under the shadow of criminal proceedings for more than a decade. Second, no material indicated that he was a habitual offender or had been involved in similar criminal activity before or after the present occurrence. Third, the forged document was detected at the threshold stage during the bail proceedings itself, and the alleged misuse did not ultimately result in any irreversible pecuniary or proprietary consequence. The Court was careful to note that this last factor did not dilute the seriousness of the offence, but it was a relevant circumstance for proportionality.

The Court also characterised the nature of the offence in context: the case pertained to the use of a forged revenue document for furnishing surety in judicial proceedings. It was not a case involving organised criminal activity, large-scale economic fraud, systematic forgery affecting public institutions, or recurring acts of deception causing widespread financial loss.

The Court referred to its earlier decision in Padum Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 3 SCC 35, where it had maintained conviction for offences including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC but reduced the sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence already undergone, and the peculiar facts of the case. The Court applied the same approach here, noting that a long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is a relevant consideration while moulding sentence.

On the period of custody, the Court noted from the custody certificate on record that the appellant had remained in custody from 19 September 2014 to 1 December 2014, and again from 6 January 2024. As of the date of the judgment, the appellant had undergone over two years of incarceration. The Court treated this as a relevant circumstance in the proportionality analysis.

Outcome

The Court partly allowed the appeal. The conviction under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC was maintained without alteration. The substantive sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the Trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court, was left unaltered.

The Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case, subject to deposit of the fine if not already paid.