Anticipatory bail denied to man accused of forging mother’s Will to exclude sister from property share

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 547/2025 registered at Police Station Neelganga, Ujjain, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant forged a Will dated 04.06.2013, purportedly executed by his deceased mother, Lt. Nafeesa Bano, in respect of a 4,350 sq. ft. plot at Green Park, Ujjain.

The applicant’s sister, Nilofer Bee, alleged that the Will was disclosed only in 2023, thereafter the property was mutated in the applicant’s name on 29.04.2024, and subsequently transferred to the applicant’s son, co-accused Atif Raja Dehlvi, through a registered sale deed dated 16.10.2024, allegedly to deprive her of her share.

Following directions issued by the High Court in an earlier writ petition, the Will was seized, a forensic examination was conducted, and the Finger Printing Bureau opined that the Will did not bear the thumb impression of Nafeesa Bano; the surviving attesting witness also gave a statement denying its execution by her.

The applicant contended that the dispute was essentially civil, that a civil suit was pending, and that there was no reliable legal evidence against him.

The objector opposed the application, including on the ground that the applicant had failed to disclose the dismissal of his son’s anticipatory-bail application in a connected case.

The Court nevertheless considered the application on merits.

1. Whether the allegations concerning the purportedly forged Will and subsequent property transactions constituted merely a civil dispute or disclosed cognizable criminal offences warranting custodial investigation?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in the circumstances of the case?

3. Whether the applicant’s case merited relief when anticipatory bail had already been denied to the co-accused, who was his son?

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, governing anticipatory bail, and considered the allegations under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC relating to cheating, forgery of valuable security or documents, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and using a forged document as genuine.

It relied on Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489, and Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, for the principle that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary and exceptional remedy, not to be granted routinely, particularly where protection may prejudice or hamper investigation.

The Court also considered State represented by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, concerning the importance of custodial interrogation, while distinguishing the authorities cited by the applicant on the civil nature of disputes involving allegedly forged documents.

The Court found that the matter could not be characterised as a purely civil dispute because the prosecution material included a forensic opinion that the purported Will did not bear the thumb impression of the deceased owner and a statement by the surviving attesting witness denying its execution.

The alleged Will surfaced only after the sister asserted her claim, and the property was thereafter mutated, transferred to the applicant’s son, and used in connection with substantial financial and commercial transactions, including a loan of approximately ₹1,28,25,000 obtained by the associated firm.

These circumstances indicated a prima facie allegation of deliberate forgery and use of the document to exclude the deceased’s daughter from the property, rather than a dispute requiring only civil adjudication.

The Court further held that the applicant’s case was weaker because anticipatory bail had already been refused to his son, the co-accused.

Applying the exceptional nature of anticipatory bail and the need to avoid hampering the investigation, the Court concluded that the applicant did not merit protection from arrest.

The first application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, was accordingly dismissed.