Parity and the civil nature of property disputes justify granting anticipatory bail in forgery cases.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 59/2026 at Police Station Sakri for alleged forgery and cheating

The complainant, Manish Shukla, alleged that the accused persons fraudulently declared him dead in legal documents to sell property belonging to his minor children, which they had inherited from their deceased mother

The property was sold on 09.10.2023, and the complainant was allegedly listed as "Late" in the sale deed to facilitate the transaction and mutation

The applicants contended that the inclusion of the word "Late" was a bona fide clerical error by the document writer, as the complainant was recorded as alive in other contemporaneous revenue and registration documents

They further argued that the dispute was essentially civil, involving ancestral property, and that a co-accused had already been granted bail

The 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, had previously rejected their bail application on 12.03.2026

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the statutory framework for the grant of anticipatory bail (corresponding to Section 438 of the CrPC)

The substantive charges were considered under Sections 420 (cheating), 464 (making a false document), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document as genuine), and 34 (common intention) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The court also relied on the principle of judicial parity, ensuring consistency in bail orders for co-accused facing similar allegations

The court evaluated the nature of the dispute, noting the applicants' argument that the "Late" prefix was a document writer's error rather than a deliberate act of forgery, supported by the fact that the complainant appeared as "alive" in subsequent sale deeds and revenue records

The court took into account that the applicants had no criminal antecedents and that their custodial interrogation was not deemed necessary for the investigation

Crucially, the court found that a similarly situated co-accused, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, had been granted bail by the same High Court in MCRCA No. 1485 of 2026 via an order dated 16.03.2026

Balancing the material evidence against the applicants' personal circumstances (including the age of applicant No. 1 and the employment status of others), the court determined that the dispute possessed elements of a civil nature and did not warrant pre-trial detention

The holding was based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the principle of parity with the co-accused

The relief was granted subject to specific conditions, including: (a) non-interference with witnesses; (b) cooperation with the trial; (c) regular appearance before the trial court; (d) submission and verification of Aadhaar cards with full-size photographs; and (e) a prohibition against committing similar offences in the future