The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that a bona fide error in documenting a deceased status in property transactions, without evidence of dishonest intent, does not constitute criminal forgery or cheating under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This ruling reinforces the principle that civil disputes over inheritance and property rights must not be criminalized absent clear mens rea.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants - Gulab Bai Pandey, Sangeeta Devi Pandey, Adarsh Pandey, Aparga Pandey, and Archana Sharma - are family members of the late Smt. Amita Shukla, who died on 04.04.2018 due to burn injuries at her matrimonial home. The property at issue, House No. 04 on Khasra No. 258 in Village Sakri, District Bilaspur, was inherited by Amita’s three minor children - Master Shukla (age 9), Ku. Parinidhi Shukla (age 15), and Ku. Pratibha Shukla (age 17) - from their maternal grandfather through Amita. The complainant, Manish Shukla, is the father of these minors and husband of the deceased.
Key Facts
- Smt. Amita Shukla executed a relinquishment deed in favour of her mother and four brothers, including Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, on 15.09.2010.
- Revenue records were subsequently mutated to reflect the names of Amita’s children and the applicants as legal heirs.
- The competent authority authorized Akhilesh Kumar Pandey as de facto guardian of the minor children and granted him a general power of attorney.
- Part of the ancestral land was acquired for the Arpa-Bhaisa Jhar State Highway Project; compensation of Rs. 3,44,138/- was paid to the minors in 2022.
- On 09.10.2023, the property was sold to a third party. The sale deed erroneously referred to Manish Shukla as "Late", though he was alive.
- A subsequent registered sale deed dated 13.05.2024 correctly listed Manish Shukla as alive.
- Crime No. 59/2026 was registered on 20.01.2026 under Sections 420, 464, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the BNS, alleging fabrication of death certificates and fraudulent sale.
- The applicants were not named in the original FIR, which named Akhilesh Pandey, Anurag Kumar Pandey, and Abhishek Pandey.
Procedural History
- 04.04.2018: Death of Smt. Amita Shukla.
- 15.09.2010: Execution of relinquishment deed by Smt. Amita Shukla.
- 2022: Compensation of Rs. 3,44,138/- paid to minors for land acquisition.
- 09.10.2023: Sale deed executed with erroneous reference to Manish Shukla as "Late".
- 13.05.2024: Corrected sale deed registered, listing Manish Shukla as alive.
- 20.01.2026: FIR lodged by Manish Shukla at Police Station Sakri.
- 12.03.2026: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 333/2026 dismissed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur.
- 16.03.2026: Co-accused Akhilesh Kumar Pandey granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1485 of 2026.
- 01.04.2026: Present application filed before Chhattisgarh High Court.
The Parties' Positions
The applicants assert they acted in good faith as guardians and legal heirs, with no intent to defraud. They argue the use of "Late" was a clerical error by the document writer, corrected in the 2024 deed. They emphasize their clean record, public standing, and lack of criminal motive.
The State contends the false declaration of death and sale of property constitute a coordinated fraud under BNS Sections 420 and 464-471, warranting arrest to ensure investigation integrity.
Relief Sought
The applicants seek anticipatory bail to prevent arrest in Crime No. 59/2026, with conditions including personal bond, surety, non-interference with witnesses, and compliance with court dates.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the inadvertent use of the term "Late" before the name of a living person in a property sale deed, where the error was later corrected and no other forged documents were proven, constitutes criminal dishonesty under Section 420 and Sections 464-471 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the applicants had lawful authority as guardians and holders of general power of attorney. The erroneous use of "Late" was a bona fide mistake by the document draftsman, not a deliberate act of forgery. The correction in the 2024 sale deed negated any claim of continuing fraud. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest cannot be automatic in non-heinous offences where no custodial interrogation is required. The applicants’ respectable status, absence of criminal antecedents, and the fact that co-accused had already been granted bail were emphasized.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the preparation and use of a document falsely declaring a living person as deceased, even if later corrected, amounts to forgery under Section 464 BNS and cheating under Section 420 BNS. The sale of property based on such a document, they argued, caused wrongful loss and was not a mere civil dispute. The State maintained that the gravity of the offence and the potential for evidence tampering justified arrest.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the alleged offence and the material on record. It noted that the complainant’s own son and daughters were the legal owners of the property, and the applicants acted as their guardians with lawful authority. The Court observed that the erroneous use of "Late" in the 2023 sale deed was corrected in the subsequent registered deed dated 13.05.2024, which clearly identified Manish Shukla as alive.
"The use of the term 'Late' appears to be a clerical or bona fide error, not a deliberate fabrication, especially in light of the subsequent correction and the absence of any other forged document being established on record."
The Court further noted that the complainant had received compensation for land acquisition in the names of the minors, indicating his awareness and participation in property matters. The Court held that the dispute, while serious, was rooted in familial property inheritance and not in a criminal conspiracy. The fact that the co-accused, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same Court on identical facts rendered denial of bail to the applicants arbitrary and discriminatory.
The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is not a matter of right but a discretionary remedy, and where the accused are not likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or obstruct justice, and where the offence is not of a heinous nature requiring custodial interrogation, bail should be granted.
The Verdict
The applicants succeeded. The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and directed that in the event of arrest, Gulab Bai Pandey, Sangeeta Devi Pandey, Adarsh Pandey, Aparga Pandey, and Archana Sharma shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and one local surety each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. They must appear before the trial court on all dates, refrain from influencing witnesses, and submit Aadhaar cards with coloured photographs for verification. No further conditions were imposed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bona Fide Errors Do Not Equate to Criminal Intent
- Practitioners must distinguish between clerical mistakes in property documents and deliberate forgery when defending charges under Sections 464-471 BNS.
- Correction of an erroneous document, especially through a subsequent registered deed, strongly negates mens rea.
- Evidence of lawful authority (e.g., power of attorney, guardianship orders) must be foregrounded in bail applications.
Anticipatory Bail Is Consistent Across Similarly Situated Accused
- Courts cannot deny bail to one accused while granting it to co-accused on identical facts without rational justification.
- The principle of non-discrimination under Article 14 applies to bail jurisprudence.
- Where co-accused are granted bail, denial to others without new facts is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
Civil Disputes Must Not Be Criminalized
- Inheritance and property disputes involving family members should be resolved civilly unless clear evidence of fraudulent intent exists.
- Prosecution must establish active deception, not mere negligence or error.
- Lawyers should move for quashing or bail early where the prosecution’s case rests on ambiguous documentation without corroborative evidence of dishonesty.
