The Court asserts that anticipatory bail must be granted unless compelling reasons exist, particularly in property disputes.

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.36 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police and seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners fabricated certain documents, including a death certificate, legal heirship certificate and patta records, in respect of the property in question. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally the property belonged to the petitioners’ ancestors. After the demise of the petitioners’ grandfather, the property devolved upon his son, and thereafter, upon his demise, it devolved upon the petitioners, their mother and other legal heirs. It is further submitted that the brothers of the first petitioner also passed away, and subsequently, the mother executed a settlement deed in favour of the first petitioner. Thereafter, the first petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of the second petitioner in respect of the property comprised in S.F.Nos.21/13A and 21/13B, Ward No.B, Block No.58. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners have not fabricated any document and that the complaint has been lodged alleging fabrication of the father’s death certificate, legal heirship certificate and patta records, which according to him is false. Hence, he prayed for anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that though the petitioners may belong to the family of the predecessors in title, the materials prima facie indicate that the property originally belonged to the family of Masilamani, Kesavan Naidu and Vembuli Naidu and that the petitioners have created documents to project semblance of right over the said property.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioners have fabricated Government records.

6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that when the accused were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate for remand, the learned Magistrate declined to authorise remand by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “ Mihir Rajesh -vs- State of Maharashtra ” reported in 2025 Supreme (Online) SC 9939. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the said order is under challenge, it is not in dispute that no stay has been granted, and as a matter of fact, this Court has already granted interim protection to the petitioners.

7. It is a well-settled principle of law that, by virtue of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “ Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI ”, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1578 and the case of “Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others” reported in (2026) INSC 115 unless there is a compelling reason, remand or arrest shall not ordinarily be resorted to by the Investigating Authority merely for the purpose of investigation. Further for effecting an arrest, there must be a reasoned order, which shall not be a mere formality.

8. In the present case, the dispute appears to revolve around title and documentary claims over immovable property, which would require examination of documents in detail. At this stage, custodial interrogation of the petitioners does not appear to be necessary. It is also relevant to observe that the grant of bail serves as an important check and balance in the criminal justice system, ensuring that no individual is subjected to unnecessary incarceration before guilt is established in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not co-operate with the investigation, it is always open