1. Forged power of attorney and sale deeds for land transfer — Offence under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 61(2)(a), BNS. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 563
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Bhawani Shankar S/o Lalluram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 2933 of 2026
Decided On : 10-03-2026
Important Points
In cases of systematic land grabbing through forged documents and powers of attorney, the gravity of the offense and the active role of the accused in executing such documents preclude the grant of bail, as the matter transcends a mere civil dispute.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA: S.483
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA: S.318(4), S.336(3), S.338, S.61(2)(a)
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA: S.318(4), S.336(3), S.338, S.61(2)(a)
Headnote
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 61(2)(a) - Bail application - Forgery of documents and land grabbing - Systemic transfer of land through fabricated power of attorney and forged wills - Where the accused is alleged to have executed multiple sale deeds based on forged documents, the offense is grave in nature - Mere claim of being a bona fide executant orwitness to documents is insufficient to grant bail when evidence suggests complicity in a criminal syndicate (Paras 7 and 8).
(B) Criminal Law - Distinction between civil dispute and criminal offense - Where fabricated documents are used to grab property and crores of rupees are collected, the court cannot draw a conclusion that the dispute is purely civil in nature, even if the accused was not the primary beneficiary (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought bail in a case involving the forgery of documents and the illegal transfer of land belonging to a complainant and their relatives. It was alleged that the applicant, in conspiracy with others, used a forged power of attorney to execute fourteen sale deeds and witnessed a fabricated will to grab the properties. The main accused, described as the kingpin, passed away while in judicial custody. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated and was unaware of the fraudulent nature of the transactions.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the allegations were serious, involving a systematic effort to transfer land through fabricated agreements and powers of attorney. The material on record indicated that the applicant played a significant role in executing the forged sale deeds. Given that bail applications of co-accused had already been dismissed and the applicant's role was found to be even more grave, the court found no ground for enlargement on bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the gravity of the forgery allegations and the specific role played in executing fabricated land transfer documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that in cases of systemic land grabbing involving fabricated documents and the execution of multiple sale deeds, the nature of the crime is grave. Such activities indicate a criminal conspiracy rather than a civil transaction. The role of the accused in executing these documents is sufficient to establish prima facie complicity, justifying the denial of bail at the investigation/trial stage.
Result: The second application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS is hereby dismissed.
(B) Criminal Law - Distinction between civil dispute and criminal offense - Where fabricated documents are used to grab property and crores of rupees are collected, the court cannot draw a conclusion that the dispute is purely civil in nature, even if the accused was not the primary beneficiary (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought bail in a case involving the forgery of documents and the illegal transfer of land belonging to a complainant and their relatives. It was alleged that the applicant, in conspiracy with others, used a forged power of attorney to execute fourteen sale deeds and witnessed a fabricated will to grab the properties. The main accused, described as the kingpin, passed away while in judicial custody. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated and was unaware of the fraudulent nature of the transactions.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the allegations were serious, involving a systematic effort to transfer land through fabricated agreements and powers of attorney. The material on record indicated that the applicant played a significant role in executing the forged sale deeds. Given that bail applications of co-accused had already been dismissed and the applicant's role was found to be even more grave, the court found no ground for enlargement on bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the gravity of the forgery allegations and the specific role played in executing fabricated land transfer documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that in cases of systemic land grabbing involving fabricated documents and the execution of multiple sale deeds, the nature of the crime is grave. Such activities indicate a criminal conspiracy rather than a civil transaction. The role of the accused in executing these documents is sufficient to establish prima facie complicity, justifying the denial of bail at the investigation/trial stage.
Result: The second application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS is hereby dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Manish Kumar, Vimal Soni
For the Respondents: Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, B.L. Nasuna, Santosh Singh Shekhawat
For the Appellants : Manish Kumar, Vimal Soni
For the Respondents: Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, B.L. Nasuna, Santosh Singh Shekhawat
Table of Contents
2. Accused claims false implication, no awareness of transaction, and willingness to cooperate. State opposes citing serious allegations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Systematic land transfer by forged documents, accused as witness and executor; grave allegations; role more serious than co-accused. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Gravity of forgery and land-transfer allegations, and accused's role, preclude bail at this stage. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Second bail application dismissed. (Para 12 )
6. What factors are relevant in considering bail for forgery and land-fraud offences?
Gravity of allegations, accused's role in systematic land transfer by forged documents, and existence of a syndicate are relevant and may justify dismissal. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. Is a civil dispute a bar to criminal proceedings in cases of forged documents?
No; when allegations involve fabrication of wills, powers of attorney, and impersonation, the court may treat the matter as criminal rather than civil. (Para 8 )
8. Is the accused's role as a witness or executor in a forged document sufficient to deny bail?
Yes, if the overall evidence suggests systematic fraud and the accused is part of a syndicate, their role as witness or executor can support denial. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
ORDER :
1. The present bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are filed by the applicant-accused Bhawani Shankar S/o Lalluram and seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.85/2025 dated 22.02.2025 registered at P.S. Samod, District - Jaipur Rural, for the offence under Section 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 61(2)(a) of BNS.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide executant of document and he was not aware about any of the transaction between complainant and main accused Dharam Pratap Singh. He also submitted that Dharam Pratap Singh has expired after his arrest and he is kingpin behind the entire conspiracy. He also submitted that the present petitioner was working with Dharam Pratap Singh who is in close acquaintance with complainant. He also submitted that present petitioner is neither aware about the whereabouts of complainant or his family members rather present petitioner has just signed a document which was brought to him by Dharam Pratap Singh. At last, he submitted that present petitioner is in custody and considering his role he is entitled to be released on bail.
4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.
6. The bail application of Sanwarmal was dismissed by this court on 09.02.2026 whereas bail application of Raju Prasad, another accused, was dismissed on 09.01.2026. Prior to aforesaid bail application of Raju Prasad, Sanwarmal, Bhawani Shankar were dismissed on 25.09.2025. Admittedly, main accused is Dharam Pratap Singh who expired while he was in judicial custody.
7. The material on record indicate that issue pertains to forgery of documents and transfer of land of complainant and his close relatives by executing power of attorney in the name of present petitioner. The power of attorney is a forged document which was never executed by complainant or his family members. The allegations are serious in nature and while deciding first bail application we have observed as under:
"On basis of a complaint dated 22.02.2025 lodged at P.S. Samod, District Jaipur Rural about transfer of land by fabricated agreement to sell and power of attorney, a report is registered and matter is investigated. During investigation, police has recorded statement of complainant and Neelima Singh, Smita Singh and Girija Shah. Police has found that Dharam Pratap Singh, who deals in properties is well aware about lands of Rajputs, and he is in conspiracy with Raju Prasad, Bhawani Shankar Soni, Sanwarmal and Harphool Choudhary hatched a conspiracy and fabricated the documents, to grab the property in question. Police has also found that a fabricated Will of late Smt. Sobhagya Kanwar (mother of complainat Sudarshan Singh) is also prepared by Dharam Pratap Singh, wherein Raju Prasad and Bhawani Shankar Soni were witnesses and after selling the land, they have collected crores of rupees. The investigation further suggested that by using forged power of attorney Bhawani Shankar Soni has executed 14 sale deeds in favour of Dharam Pratap Singh and in all sale deeds, Raju Prasad and Sanwarmal are witnesses."
8. Again considering second bail application of Raju Prasad on 09.01.2026 we have observed as under:
"8. The main accused Dharam Pratap Singh was arrested on 23.09.2025 and his bail application No. 15785/2025 was filed before
