Court Emphasizes the Exceptional Nature of Anticipatory Bail Amidst Strong Evidence of Forgery and Exclusion of Female Heir
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Shadab Hussain Sarfaraj Hussain, accused of forging a will to unlawfully claim property and exclude his sister, Nilofer Bee, from her rightful share. The case, presided over by Justice Gajendra Singh at the Indore bench, highlights the court's firm stance on the misuse of legal documents to deprive heirs of their inheritance.
The applicant, Shadab Hussain, allegedly forged a will purportedly executed by his deceased mother, Lt. Nafeesa Bano, to claim ownership of a plot in Ujjain. The plot, originally purchased by his mother, was subsequently transferred to his name without his sister's consent. The transfer was discovered when Shadab sold the property to his son, co-accused Atif Raja Dehlvi.
Nilofer Bee's complaint led to a police investigation, revealing that the will did not bear the thumb impression of Lt. Nafeesa Bano, as confirmed by the Finger Printing Bureau. Additionally, the sole surviving witness to the will denied its authenticity. These findings reinforced the court's decision to deny anticipatory bail, considering the matter beyond a mere civil dispute and indicative of criminal intent.
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, not to be granted routinely, especially in cases involving serious allegations like forgery. Justice Singh noted that granting bail in such circumstances could lead to a miscarriage of justice and potentially hinder the investigation.
The ruling referenced several Supreme Court decisions underscoring the exceptional nature of anticipatory bail. The court concluded that the applicant's case did not warrant such relief, given the strong evidence against him and the denial of anticipatory bail to his co-accused son in a related proceeding.
This decision reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to ensuring justice and preventing the misuse of anticipatory bail in cases with severe allegations and substantial evidence pointing towards criminal activities.
Bottom Line :
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should not be granted in routine cases, particularly where strong evidence of forgery and tampering with property documents exists, involving denial of rights of female heirs.
Statutory provision(s): Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471.
