After Joining Probe, Man Accused in Property-Paper Forgery Case Gets Anticipatory Bail; Passport or Non-Possession Affidavit Due in a Week: P&H HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of interim anticipatory bail in light of his cooperation with the investigation and the State’s position on custodial interrogation.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and made the interim anticipatory-bail order dated 24 September 2026 absolute.

It also directed

The petitioner must continue to join the investigation as required and comply with the conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS.

He must also submit his passport or, if he does not possess one, an affidavit confirming non-possession within one week; failing that, the order becomes inoperative and the Investigating Officer may proceed with arrest.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 119 dated 2 June 2026, registered under Sections 379, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, with corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 1 · p. 1 · ¶ 2 · pp. 2–3

The allegations concerned an agreement to sell three acres of land, payment of earnest money, and alleged fabrication or manipulation of transaction documents, including a Rasidnama.

¶ 1 · p. 1 · ¶ 2 · pp. 2–3

On 24 September 2026, the Court granted interim protection subject to the petitioner joining the investigation and complying with specified conditions, including surrendering his passport or filing an affidavit of non-possession.

¶ 2 · pp. 5–6

At the final hearing, the State confirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation and that custodial interrogation was not then required.

¶ 3–4 · p. 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of interim anticipatory bail in light of his cooperation with the investigation and the State’s position on custodial interrogation.

¶ 3–4 · p. 6 · ¶ 7 · p. 7

ii.2. Whether anticipatory bail should be refused on the complainant’s allegations of fabrication, cheating and conspiracy, notwithstanding the petitioner’s cooperation and the State’s assessment.

¶ 5 · pp. 6–7 · ¶ 7 · p. 7

iii.3. Whether the petitioner’s passport or an affidavit confirming its non-possession should be made a condition of continued protection.

¶ 2 · p. 5 · ¶ 8 · p. 7

03Law Applied

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides for anticipatory bail; subsection (2) sets out conditions applicable to a person released on anticipatory bail.

¶ 1–2 · p. 1, 5 · ¶ 7 · p. 7

The FIR invoked Sections 379, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, identified in the judgment alongside their stated corresponding BNS provisions.

¶ 1 · p. 1

The judgment cited no precedent and did not set out a broader legal test; it determined the bail request on the circumstances before it, including the petitioner’s cooperation and the State’s submission that custodial interrogation was not required.

¶ 3–7 · pp. 6–7

Provisions in the judgment · 15 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 379 Section 420 Section 465 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 303 Section 318 Section 336 Section 338 Section 340 Section 61

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 438

04Reasoning

The Court made the interim protection absolute after the petitioner joined the investigation and the State confirmed that custodial interrogation was not required at that stage.

¶ 3–4 · p. 6 · ¶ 7 · p. 7

Although the complainant opposed bail, alleging that the petitioner had participated in fabricating documents and that custody was needed to investigate the alleged conspiracy, the Court granted relief on the basis of the petitioner’s cooperation and the State’s position.

¶ 5 · pp. 6–7 · ¶ 7 · p. 7

It did not determine the merits of the competing allegations concerning the documents or the civil proceedings. Instead, it preserved investigative obligations and imposed a passport-related condition.

¶ 7–8 · p. 7