Anticipatory bail granted in property dispute involving allegations of forged documents and fraudulent sale.

On January 20, 2026, the informant, Manish Shukla, lodged an FIR at Police Station Sakri alleging that the applicants and a co-accused fraudulently declared him dead to sell property recorded in the names of his minor children.

The property, allegedly inherited from the children's maternal grandfather through their late mother, was sold on October 9, 2023, while the informant was alive.

The applicants contended that the dispute is civil/ancestral and that they were appointed de facto guardians by a Tahsildar.

They further argued that the description of the complainant as "Late" in the sale deed was a bona fide typographical error, as subsequent revenue records and sale deeds correctly identified him as alive.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the allegations of forgery and cheating under the IPC.

2. Whether the dispute is primarily civil in nature, thereby mitigating the necessity of custodial interrogation.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant anticipatory bail.

Substantive charges were considered under Sections 420 (Cheating), 464, 467, 468, 471 (Forgery and use of forged documents), and 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly where the dispute appears to be civil and the trial is expected to be protracted.

The court examined the competing claims regarding the legality of the property transaction.

It noted the applicants' defense that they acted under a power of attorney and revenue orders, and that the minor children's compensation from other land acquisitions was being managed via fixed deposits.

The court highlighted that the crucial allegation—declaring the informant dead—was countered by the applicant as a typographical error in the documentation.

In balancing the nature of the allegations against the fact that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and are permanent residents with stable employment, the court determined that custodial interrogation was not required at this stage.

The court emphasized that the investigation and subsequent trial would take a considerable amount of time.

The holding directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released upon executing a personal bond and surety.

The relief was made subject to conditions, including non-inducement of witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, submission of Aadhaar credentials for verification, and a prohibition against committing similar offenses in the future.