##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

[2025:RJ-JP:51786] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16478/2025]

documents. He further submits that the brother of the petitioner

who is present before this Court, has affirmed that they are in

possession of only 360 square yards of the land and not beyond

that and there exists a boundary line which clearly demarcating

the property. He further submits that the part of that property on

which they are situated was purchased by way of an agreement in

the year 2006. On those grounds, it is argued that the dispute is

essentially of a civil nature, which has been given the colour of a

criminal offence, and therefore the petitioner deserves to be

enlarged on bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, along with the

Investigating Officer present in the Court, strongly opposed the

bail application and submitted that the petitioner had submitted

the forged documents pertaining to the year 2003, projecting

himself as the owner of the entire land, whereas the complainant

had sold the part of property in 2006 to the petitioner’s brother

and not the entire land.

4. This Court has considered the nature of the allegation and

has also taken note of the statement made by the brother of the

petitioner as present in the Court to the effect that they are in

possession of only a part of the land which they purchased in the

year 2006 and not beyond that.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

nature of the allegation and the fact that only part of the land was

purchased by the brother of the petitioner in the year 2006. This

Court further records that as for the record provided to this Court,

the petitioner had 24 cases in the past out of which many have

been settled, however, in case any new offence is reported against

(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 11:48:51 AM)

(Downloaded on 18/01/2026 at 04:15:21 AM)