Anticipatory bail is maintainable where property disputes are civil in nature and no documentary forgery is alleged.

The accused/applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 487/2025 (PS Chhawla) registered under Sections 316/318/324/326/340/329/351/61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The dispute stems from a property originally owned by Sh. Khubram, who bequeathed it to seven grandsons via a 1982 Will.

Following the death of one grandson (Mahender Kumar), his share was inherited by his father, Chandan Singh, who subsequently transferred interests via Release Deeds in 1998 and 2014.

The prosecution alleges that the 2014 Release Deed in favor of co-accused Rajinder Singh was executed without Chandan Singh having the requisite title, and that the applicant (Rajinder’s son) orchestrated this execution.

The State opposed bail, noting that anticipatory bail was previously denied to Rajinder Singh on 17.03.2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail in a matter involving a property dispute among relatives where no forgery is alleged.

2. Whether the applicant’s failure to produce the original Will of the deceased constitutes non-cooperation in the investigation.

The Court applied the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 438 CrPC), emphasizing the distinction between civil disputes and criminal culpability.

It relied on the principle that the inability of an accused to produce specific evidence (such as an original document) does not inherently constitute non-cooperation, as the primary burden of collecting evidence lies with the investigating agency.

The Court noted that the parties are close relatives embroiled in existing civil litigation and that the State admitted no documents were found to be forged; the allegation was limited to "cheating" regarding the lack of title to transfer the property.

While the State argued that the applicant did not produce the original Will, the Court held that this did not equate to non-cooperation since the applicant had joined the investigation as directed.

Regarding the denial of bail to the co-accused (the father), the Court observed that the father was the "ultimate beneficiary," yet remains unarrested despite his bail rejection two months prior, whereas the applicant is currently not a beneficiary of the alleged cheating.

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to the condition that he continues to join the investigation as directed in writing by the Investigating Officer.