Anticipatory bail granted where property dispute is primarily civil and based on documentary evidence.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 179/2026 for offenses involving forgery and cheating.

The complainant alleged that he is the sole owner of land at Village Rawabhatha, which he sold via registered deed in October 2025.

He claimed the applicants, in collusion with others, fabricated a prior "agreement to sell" dated July 2025 by forging his signature/thumb impression to falsely claim a payment of Rs. 6,11,000 and subsequently filed a false civil suit based on this forged document.

The applicants contended the dispute is purely civil, a suit for specific performance is already pending, and the FIR was a malicious attempt to give a criminal color to a civil matter.

Whether the applicants are entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail given the nature of the dispute and the stage of the investigation.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail (corresponding to Section 438 of the CrPC).

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Sections 61(2) (Criminal Conspiracy), 318(4) (Cheating), 336(3) (Forgery), 340(2) (Using forged document), and 3(5) (Common intention).

The principle that bail may be granted when a dispute appears predominantly civil in nature and custodial interrogation is not deemed necessary for the recovery of documentary evidence.

The court evaluated the competing claims of the prosecution and the defense, noting the applicants' argument that the case rests on an agreement to sell for which a civil suit for specific performance is already sub judice.

The court observed that the evidence required for the investigation is largely documentary and already within the possession of the authorities, negating the immediate need for custodial interrogation.

The court took into account the criminal antecedents—noting applicant No. 1 has three prior cases (two compromised, one pending) while applicant No. 2 has none—and balanced this against the likelihood of the trial and investigation taking a significant amount of time.

The court allowed the anticipatory bail application and held that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released upon executing a personal bond and one surety, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, and a prohibition against committing similar future offenses.