Anticipatory bail was denied where alleged forged property documents required custodial interrogation.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0401/2025, registered at PS Harsh Vihar under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 448 of the IPC, concerning an alleged fraudulent claim to a 125-square-yard property in Village Mandoli.

They asserted that the property had been purchased in 2000 through property documents and that they had been in possession since then; they also relied on their cooperation with the investigation and argued that the dispute was civil in nature.

The State alleged that the documents were forged, that the registered GPA related to a different khasra number, and that the applicants’ claim of possession was contradicted by earlier civil proceedings.

The Police also reported that the electricity connection had allegedly been obtained using a forged NOC and that the applicant Yogesh had previously been involved in other FIRs.

Sannu Ram was stated to be over 80 years old.

1. Whether Dinesh and Yogesh Kumar were entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of forged property documents, the status of the investigation and the need for their custodial interrogation.

2. Whether Sannu Ram, given his age, should be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

The applications were brought under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court applied its statutory power to consider anticipatory bail on the circumstances of each applicant, including the stage and needs of the investigation, the allegations and material placed before it, and the applicant’s individual circumstances.

No precedent or more specific legal test was cited in the judgment.

The Court considered the State’s allegations that the applicants’ property documents were forged and that the registered documents related to Khasra No. 26/11/2 rather than Khasra No. 25/11.

It also noted that the earlier suit brought by Yogesh was dismissed, the appeal was dismissed, and the civil court had recorded that the applicants had not produced evidence of possession.

In view of the ongoing investigation and the Police’s stated need for custody to interrogate the applicants, the Court found no ground to grant anticipatory bail to Dinesh and Yogesh.

It treated Sannu Ram’s age—over 80—as a relevant individual circumstance warranting conditional protection.

It granted anticipatory bail to Sannu Ram, subject to a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety in the like amount and conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation, maintenance of contact and address details, prior intimation before leaving the NCT of Delhi, and non-interference with witnesses or evidence.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail applications and would not affect the merits of the case.