P&H HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Using Forged Land Deeds To Secure Mutations, Citing Need To Trace Revenue Officials

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in an FIR alleging, among other offences, cheating, trespass, theft and use of forged documents.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused relied on a forged General Power of Attorney and sale deed to secure land mutations and later attempted to take possession of the disputed land.

The petitioner maintained that his father had purchased the land, that the parties’ claims concerned different parcels, and that the dispute was civil in nature.

The State reported that the Sub-Registrar could not locate the sale deed in the official record, that the relevant documents were suspected to be forged, and that the petitioner had not joined the investigation despite notices.

It asserted that custodial interrogation was needed to investigate the documents, mutations, alleged land incident and other persons involved.

The Additional Sessions Judge had declined anticipatory bail; the High Court considered the petitioner’s application following that refusal.

Section 482 BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 CrPC) governs the grant of anticipatory bail.

Relying on *Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr.*, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, the Court stated that the first consideration is the prima facie case; the nature and seriousness of the offence must also be considered.

The absence of a need for custodial interrogation, by itself, is not sufficient to justify anticipatory bail, though custodial interrogation may be one relevant factor.

The Court considered the State’s material that the sale deed was not reflected in the Sub-Registrar’s records, that the underlying GPA was also alleged to be forged, and that mutations based on the documents had benefited the petitioner.

It also took account of the allegations concerning the attempt to take possession and the petitioner’s failure to join the investigation despite notices.

In the Court’s view, the prima facie case and the need to investigate the origin and use of the documents, the involvement of revenue officials and other persons, and the land incident supported the State’s request for custodial interrogation.

Applying *Sumitha Pradeep*, the Court did not treat custodial interrogation as the sole test but considered it alongside the prima facie material and the nature of the allegations.

It clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail application and would not affect the Trial Court’s assessment of the evidence.