P&H HC Grants Bail To Man Accused In Alleged Land-Document Forgery After Probe Ends; He Was Not Accused Of Executing Sale Deed

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that revenue particulars in a 2019 General Power of Attorney were interpolated and that a co-accused used the document to execute a sale deed concerning the complainant’s land.

The petitioner, arrested on 17 July 2026, denied involvement in the alleged forgery or conspiracy.

He relied, among other things, on completion of the investigation, presentation of the challan, his custody and clean antecedents, and cancellation of the disputed instruments.

The State and complainant opposed bail, alleging that he was the principal conspirator.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

Under Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the object of bail is to secure an accused’s appearance at trial; pre-trial detention is not punishment, and the nature and gravity of the accusation must be considered alongside the other circumstances relevant to bail.

The cancellation of disputed documents or existence of civil proceedings does not, by itself, extinguish criminal liability where the alleged offences are otherwise made out.

The Court considered that the petitioner’s participation in executing the original power of attorney was distinct from the alleged later interpolation, and that his knowledge of or participation in the manipulation and conspiracy remained to be assessed at trial.

It also noted that he had been in custody since 17 July 2026, the investigation was complete, the challan had been presented, the evidence was predominantly documentary, and the recovery and collection of specimen signatures and handwriting had been completed.

The petitioner was not alleged to have executed the subsequent sale deed or to have been its direct beneficiary, and no specific material indicated a risk of absconding, witness interference or evidence tampering.

The cancellation of the documents and withdrawal of the civil suit were relevant only to the bail decision and did not determine criminal liability.

It expressed no opinion on the merits and left the prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the event of misuse or breach of conditions.