Anticipatory bail denied where forged educational records require further investigation and custodial interrogation.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 340/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Morena, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant’s actual date of birth was recorded as 1 August 1987 in educational records maintained at institutions in Pinahat, Agra.

Subsequently, he allegedly obtained admission in schools in Morena on the basis of forged educational documents, showing his date of birth as 20 July 1992, and used those documents for further education, sports-related benefits and securing Government employment as an Income Tax Inspector.

The applicant denied the allegations, contending that he had been falsely implicated due to pending matrimonial disputes with his wife and that the case was initiated by the complainant, who was his father-in-law.

The State and complainant opposed bail, submitting that the investigation was at a crucial stage and that custodial interrogation was required to verify the original records and ascertain the source and involvement of persons connected with the forged documents.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in view of the allegations of cheating, fabrication and use of forged educational documents?

Whether the pending matrimonial dispute and the documentary nature of the evidence justified granting anticipatory bail when the investigation, including verification of original records and the applicant’s alleged role, was still incomplete?

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.

The alleged substantive offences were Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, concerning cheating, forgery of valuable or significant documents, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and using forged documents as genuine.

In deciding anticipatory bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the material collected during investigation, the role attributed to the accused and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

The Court also reiterated that, at the anticipatory-bail stage, it is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or conclusively determine the genuineness of the disputed documents.

The Court found that the prosecution case was not merely a dispute concerning the applicant’s date of birth.

The material indicated a prima facie discrepancy between the date of birth recorded in the applicant’s earlier educational records and the date subsequently reflected in records from institutions in Morena.

The alleged use of forged transfer certificates and mark-sheets was connected not only with admission and education but also with the obtaining of Government and other benefits, including Government employment.

Since the original educational records, admission registers, transfer certificates and the circumstances in which the subsequent documents were prepared still required investigation, the Court considered custodial interrogation potentially relevant.

The applicant’s plea that the complainant was motivated by matrimonial disputes was held insufficient, by itself, to displace the material collected during investigation.

The Court also noted that the applicant was absconding.

Accordingly, the seriousness of the allegations, the alleged use of forged documents for securing Government employment and the unfinished investigation outweighed the applicant’s claim that the evidence was documentary and that arrest would prejudice his service and reputation.

Considering the seriousness of the alleged forgery and cheating, the material collected, the alleged use of false documents for obtaining educational and Government benefits, and the continuing investigation, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail.

The first anticipatory-bail application was dismissed as devoid of merit, and no relief was granted to the applicant.