Anticipatory bail granted where no specific material linked purchasers to document forgery.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 116/2026, registered for offences under Sections 340(2), 336(3), 338, 318(4), 319(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that forged documents had been prepared and used to execute fraudulent sale deeds concerning land recorded in the complainant’s and other co-sharers’ names.

The applicants claimed that they purchased a 60-by-60-foot plot through a registered sale deed, paid consideration through banking channels, and were unaware of any alleged forgery. They further stated that, after discovering the alleged fraud and being denied possession, they complained to police authorities and filed a private complaint before the JMFC.

The State opposed bail, contending that the applicants’ knowledge and involvement required investigation.

Whether the applicants had made out a case for anticipatory bail in relation to the alleged use of forged documents and fraudulent sale deeds

Whether the applicants’ claimed bona fide purchase, payment through banking channels, and subsequent complaints to authorities supported granting anticipatory bail despite the State’s objections

The application was brought under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.

In assessing the request, the Court considered the allegations, the case diary and material on record, including whether specific material showed that the applicants had prepared or fabricated the disputed documents or impersonated the recorded landowners.

The order imposed conditions by reference to Section 480(2) and (3) of the Cr.P.C., including availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, and restrictions on leaving India.

The Court acknowledged that the alleged offences involved preparation and use of forged documents to execute fraudulent sale deeds, but found that the applicants claimed to have purchased the property by registered deed and paid the consideration through banking channels.

It also considered significant their assertion that, after discovering the alleged forgery and being denied possession, they approached the police and filed a private complaint seeking action against those responsible.

As no specific material before the Court demonstrated that the applicants had themselves fabricated the documents or impersonated the landowners, the Court found a basis to grant anticipatory bail, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

In the event of arrest, each applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent local surety for the like amount, subject to the stated conditions, including cooperation with interrogation and non-interference with complainants or witnesses.