Anticipatory bail denied where prima facie evidence suggests land grabbing using forged title documents and financial conspiracy.

The petitioner, Manoj Yadav, sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 125/2023 at P.S. Jaffarpur Kalan for offences under Sections 448/506/34 of the IPC

The complainant, Sangeeta Devi, alleged that while she was away, the petitioner and his wife illegally occupied her plots (Nos. 381 and 382) using fabricated documents and issued threats

Investigation revealed that the petitioner’s chain of title was based on forged signatures of the original owner and witnesses, as confirmed by an FSL report

Financial records showed that ₹5.5 lakh paid by the petitioner's wife to a co-accused was subsequently transferred back to the petitioner

The petitioner contended the dispute was purely civil, citing a pending civil suit filed by the complainant

1. Whether the present dispute is purely civil in nature, thereby warranting the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail in light of allegations of forgery, conspiracy, and non-cooperation with the investigation?

The court primarily applied the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 482 of BNSS).

It focused on the gravity of the offence, the need for custodial interrogation to unearth a conspiracy involving forged documents, and the conduct of the accused regarding cooperation with the investigating agency

The court distinguished between a "purely civil dispute" and criminal acts of land grabbing and forgery

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the matter was a civil dispute, noting that the existence of a civil suit does not preclude criminal liability when forgery and land grabbing are alleged

The Court analyzed the FSL report which confirmed that signatures on the title documents relied upon by the petitioner were forged

It further observed a suspicious "money trail" where the sale consideration was transferred back to the petitioner, suggesting a concerted conspiracy

The Court took a stern view of the petitioner’s conduct, specifically his failure to join the investigation despite repeated notices and the issuance of non-bailable warrants

Given that the petitioner was identified as the "main conspirator" and had multiple pending cases of land grabbing, the Court found that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the full extent of the fabrication

It held that the seriousness of the allegations (forgery and conspiracy), the forensic evidence supporting the prosecution's claim, and the petitioner's history of non-cooperation and prior involvement in similar offences disentitled him to discretionary relief

All pending applications were dismissed accordingly