Impersonation in obtaining land deeds constitutes forgery under relevant statutes.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 16-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Gaya Jee Complaint Case No. 1084 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318 , 318(A), 336(3), 340(2), 338 and

61(2) of BNS .

3. Prosecution case is that the accused persons including the petitioners, in conspiracy with each other, dishonestly and by deceitful means prepared a forged sale deed in respect of the complainant’s land. It is alleged that the petitioners in-league with other co-accused persons obtained a Kevala (sale deed) by fraud, affixing a false thumb impression of the complainant, and also used the photograph of another person (Lalo Manjhi) in place of the complainant. On this basis, the accused persons falsely claimed ownership over the complainant’s land and attempted to dispossess him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are quite innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The alleged offence is related to a land dispute which is of civil nature. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners of preparing forged document.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. From perusal of complaint petition, it appears that complainant and both accused petitioners are resident of same village and it is alleged in the complaint petition that petitioners by impersonating some other persons have got executed sale deed pertaining to their land in favour of them on 02.09.2020. The petitioners of this case have not challenged this fact the photographs depicted on sale deed is of the same person or not. So, from this fact it is abundantly clear that they have committed forgery and fraud by impersonation.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly bail application of petitioners stands rejected.

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)