Anticipatory bail denied where power-of-attorney holder prima facie appeared aware of forged land documents.

The applicant filed his first application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 131/2026 registered at Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code

The prosecution alleged that government land belonging to Gram Panchayat Raimer had been unlawfully divided, transferred and sold on the basis of forged leases, revenue entries and other fabricated documents.

The applicant, a land broker and registered power-of-attorney holder, allegedly participated in the transfer and sale of the land to a third party

The applicant contended that he had acted bona fide on the basis of registered powers of attorney, existing revenue records and a Rin Pustika, and had no knowledge of any forgery

The State opposed anticipatory bail, asserting that the applicant had sold the property using forged documents and that investigation, including departmental proceedings against the concerned Patwari, was ongoing

Whether the applicant, accused of participating in the sale of government land on the basis of allegedly forged and fabricated documents, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Whether the applicant could claim lack of knowledge of the alleged forgery merely because he acted as a registered power-of-attorney holder and relied on revenue records

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail.

It considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the prima facie material against the applicant, and the stage of investigation while determining whether pre-arrest protection should be granted

The alleged offences were under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, relating respectively to cheating, forgery of valuable security or authority, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using forged documents as genuine, and criminal conspiracy

The Court found that government land had prima facie been mutated in the name of co-accused Ujit Ram through forged and fabricated documents and was thereafter sold to a third party by the applicant while acting as power-of-attorney holder

In view of the applicant’s role as broker and power-of-attorney holder in the transaction, the Court held that it could not, at the anticipatory-bail stage, accept that he was unaware of the alleged forgery.

The involvement of the concerned Patwari and the ongoing departmental and criminal investigation further supported the State’s objection to pre-arrest protection

The Court clarified that these observations were prima facie and without expressing any final opinion on the merits

The application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was accordingly rejected