Introduction:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Shadab Hussain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC No. 25031 of 2026, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 329, has refused to grant anticipatory bail to an accused alleged to have forged his mother’s Will in order to deprive his sister of her share in the family property. Justice Gajendra Singh, considering the circumstances surrounding the disputed Will and the subsequent transactions involving the property, held that the allegations could not be reduced to a mere civil dispute concerning succession or property rights.
The case arose from a dispute within a family consisting of two sons and one daughter. The prosecution case was that the applicant had relied upon a purported Will allegedly executed by his mother on June 4, 2013, under which a plot situated in the Ujjain area was claimed to have devolved in his favour. According to the complainant, who was the applicant’s sister, the Will was not genuine and had been brought forward to prevent her from receiving her lawful share in their mother’s property.
The controversy came to light much later. The sister alleged that the applicant disclosed the existence of the Will in 2023 when she asserted her claim over the property. According to her allegations, the applicant had already succeeded in getting the property mutated in his name without obtaining her consent. Thereafter, the property was transferred through a sale deed dated October 16, 2024, in favour of the applicant’s son, who was also arrayed as a co-accused in the proceedings.
The prosecution case therefore involved more than a disagreement over the distribution of inherited property. The allegation was that a forged testamentary document had been used as the foundation for mutation and subsequent transfer of the property. The complainant contended that these acts were deliberately undertaken to eliminate her claim as a daughter and legal heir of the deceased mother.
An important piece of material considered by the High Court was the report of the fingerprinting expert. According to the material placed before the Court, the purported Will did not bear the thumb impressions of the mother, although the document was being relied upon as a Will allegedly executed by her.
The evidentiary position was further complicated by the fact that the sole surviving attesting witness to the Will had denied its execution. Thus, at the stage of considering anticipatory bail, the Court was confronted with allegations supported by material which raised serious questions concerning the authenticity of the testamentary document.
The applicant approached the High Court seeking protection from arrest. His counsel argued that the prosecution story was doubtful and that there was no legally sufficient material at that stage to establish that the applicant himself had forged the Will. The defence sought to characterize the controversy essentially as a dispute over property and inheritance, suggesting that the parties could pursue their respective civil remedies.
The State and the complainant, however, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The prosecution relied upon the circumstances surrounding the Will, the mutation of the property, the subsequent formation of a company connected with the transactions and the eventual sale of the property to the applicant’s son.
The Court was therefore required to consider a central question: whether the allegations merely reflected a family dispute concerning succession, or whether the material disclosed a prima facie criminal dimension involving the alleged fabrication and use of documents to deprive a co-heir of her property rights.
Another circumstance that weighed against the applicant was the treatment of the bail application filed by the co-accused. The Court noted that anticipatory bail had already been denied to the co-accused. The applicant had also faced an allegation that this fact had not been disclosed when his application was presented before the Court.
The applicant attempted to explain the non-disclosure by stating that he had no knowledge of the earlier proceedings and therefore had neither deliberately concealed the information nor intended to mislead the Court. Nevertheless, the Court considered the circumstances while assessing whether the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail should be extended.
The case thus required the High Court to balance the general principle that a person is entitled to protection against unnecessary arrest with the seriousness of allegations involving alleged fabrication of a testamentary document and subsequent transactions concerning immovable property.
At the anticipatory bail stage, the Court was not conducting a full trial or determining the applicant’s guilt. However, it was required to assess the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence and whether the applicant deserved the discretionary protection sought under the law.
After examining these circumstances, Justice Gajendra Singh concluded that the case could not be treated as a simple civil dispute. The Court found that the allegations went beyond a disagreement over inheritance because the material indicated an alleged use of a disputed Will to secure control over the property and subsequently deal with it through further transactions.
The Court consequently dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
Arguments of the Parties:
On behalf of the applicant, Advocate Manish Yadav argued that the prosecution case was doubtful and that the allegations did not establish any clear criminal involvement of the applicant in the alleged forgery. The defence sought to challenge the prosecution’s version at the threshold and urged the Court to extend the protection of anticipatory bail.
A significant aspect of the defence was the attempt to characterize the controversy as essentially civil in nature. Since the dispute concerned a mother’s property, inheritance and the competing claims of her children, the applicant’s side suggested that the proper forum for determining entitlement to the property was a civil court rather than the criminal process.
The defence also questioned the evidentiary basis of the allegation that the applicant had forged the Will. It was argued that there was no conclusive legal evidence demonstrating that the applicant personally fabricated the document. According to the applicant, suspicion arising from the subsequent mutation or sale of the property could not automatically establish the commission of a criminal offence.
The defence also addressed the allegation concerning the non-disclosure of the earlier rejection of the co-accused’s anticipatory bail application. The applicant maintained that he was unaware of the proceedings involving the co-accused and that the omission was therefore not deliberate. His case was that the failure to mention the earlier order could not be treated as intentional concealment or suppression of material information.
The applicant’s side thus sought to persuade the Court that the allegations required a more cautious approach. The existence of a property dispute, even if accompanied by disagreement regarding the authenticity of a Will, should not by itself justify denial of anticipatory bail unless there was substantial material connecting the accused with the alleged forgery.
The defence also emphasized that the allegations concerning the Will were matters that could ultimately be tested through evidence during trial. At the anticipatory bail stage, the applicant contended, the Court should not undertake a detailed examination of disputed facts or reach conclusions concerning the authenticity of the document.
The State, represented by Government Advocate Rahul Solanki, opposed the application. The prosecution relied upon the material collected during investigation and emphasized that the circumstances were not consistent with a straightforward civil dispute.
According to the prosecution, the applicant had relied upon a Will purportedly executed by his mother on June 4, 2013, under which the disputed plot came to be treated as belonging to him. The complainant, however, asserted that the document was forged and that it was brought forward only after she claimed her share in the property.
The State relied significantly upon the fingerprinting expert’s findings. The purported Will allegedly did not contain the thumb impressions of the mother. This circumstance assumed importance because the document was being presented as a testamentary instrument executed by her.
The prosecution also relied upon the statement of the sole surviving attesting witness, who had denied that the Will had been executed as claimed. The combination of the absence of the mother’s thumb impressions and the denial by the attesting witness, according to the prosecution, raised serious questions regarding the authenticity of the document.
The prosecution further drew attention to the subsequent events concerning the property. The property was allegedly mutated in the applicant’s name after the Will came into consideration. The investigation also revealed the formation of M/s Shalimar Associates on November 20, 2023.
The Court was informed that a loan had subsequently been obtained in the name of the company, with the applicant named as a co-borrower. These circumstances were considered relevant because they demonstrated that the disputed property was not merely the subject of a passive inheritance claim but had become part of a series of transactions and financial arrangements.
The prosecution also pointed to the sale deed dated October 16, 2024, executed by the applicant in favour of his son, who was also implicated as a co-accused. According to the complainant, this transfer was another step in the alleged attempt to place the property beyond her reach.
The complainant, represented by Advocate Arpit Singh, opposed the anticipatory bail application and maintained that the alleged Will had been used specifically to exclude her from the property inherited from her mother. Her objection was that the criminal proceedings could not be dismissed as a simple dispute between family members because the allegations concerned the creation and use of an allegedly fabricated document.
The complainant also brought to the Court’s attention the fact that the co-accused’s application for anticipatory bail had already been rejected. She argued that the applicant had not disclosed this circumstance before seeking similar relief.
The applicant responded that he had no knowledge of the earlier proceedings and therefore had not intentionally concealed the order. The Court nevertheless considered the fact of the co-accused’s rejection while assessing the applicant’s claim for discretionary relief.
The opposing submissions therefore presented two competing characterizations of the case. The applicant sought to place it within the category of property and inheritance disputes where civil remedies are available. The prosecution and complainant, on the other hand, maintained that the alleged fabrication of a Will and the subsequent transactions transformed the matter into a criminal case involving deception, forgery and the alleged unlawful deprivation of a co-heir’s property rights.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Gajendra Singh of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail after examining the material available against the applicant. The Court’s principal concern was whether the allegations could genuinely be classified as a purely civil dispute or whether the circumstances disclosed a criminal dimension warranting investigation and custodial protection being denied.
The Court answered the question against the applicant. It observed that the matter could not be treated as a mere civil dispute and that it went beyond the scope of an ordinary disagreement concerning property rights.
The Court’s conclusion was influenced significantly by the material concerning the authenticity of the Will. The document dated June 4, 2013 was relied upon as the instrument by which the applicant’s mother had allegedly transferred the disputed property to him.
However, the fingerprinting expert’s report indicated that the purported Will did not bear the mother’s thumb impressions. This was not treated as an inconsequential discrepancy. Since the applicant’s claim over the property was substantially connected with the alleged Will, the authenticity of that document became a central issue in the criminal investigation.
The Court also considered the position of the sole surviving attesting witness. According to the material before the Court, the witness had denied the execution of the Will. The denial was significant because attestation forms an important part of the legal framework governing the proof of a Will.
At the anticipatory bail stage, the Court was not required to finally determine whether the Will was forged. That question would ultimately depend upon evidence and the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, the Court was entitled to consider the available material in determining whether the applicant deserved protection from arrest.
The combination of the disputed testamentary document, the absence of the mother’s thumb impressions and the attesting witness’s denial provided circumstances which, in the Court’s assessment, could not simply be brushed aside as an ordinary family property dispute.
The Court then considered the chronology of events surrounding the property. According to the material collected during investigation, the alleged Will came into the picture when the sister asserted her claim to a share in the mother’s property.
The property was subsequently found to have been mutated in the applicant’s name. The Court also noted the formation of M/s Shalimar Associates on November 20, 2023, as well as the subsequent financial transactions associated with the company.
The Court took note of the fact that a loan had been obtained in the company’s name and that the applicant had been shown as a co-borrower. While these circumstances by themselves would not establish criminal liability, the Court considered them as part of the larger factual chain emerging from the investigation.
The Court further noted that a sale deed was executed by the applicant in favour of his son. This transaction was important because it occurred after the property had allegedly been brought under the applicant’s control through the disputed Will and mutation.
The complainant’s case was that the sequence of events reflected an effort to exclude her from the property and subsequently transfer the asset within the family. The High Court considered this sequence while assessing whether the allegations were sufficiently serious to deny anticipatory bail.
The Court’s observation that the matter went beyond a civil dispute is particularly significant. Property disputes can frequently generate criminal allegations, and courts are required to distinguish between a genuine civil controversy and a case where criminal acts have allegedly been committed in the course of dealing with property.
The mere existence of a civil remedy does not necessarily eliminate criminal liability where the allegations disclose independent criminal conduct. If a person is alleged to have fabricated a document, used it to obtain mutation or otherwise committed offences in order to secure property, the existence of a parallel civil dispute does not automatically prevent criminal investigation.
In the present case, the Court found that the allegations concerning the Will were sufficiently serious to take the matter outside the category of a purely civil disagreement.
The Court also attached significance to the fact that anticipatory bail had already been denied to the co-accused. The applicant’s son, who was allegedly the beneficiary of the subsequent sale transaction, had already approached the Court and had been denied similar protection.
The High Court observed that this circumstance placed the applicant’s case on an even weaker footing. While the rejection of bail to a co-accused does not mechanically determine another accused’s entitlement to anticipatory bail, parity remains a relevant consideration when the allegations and circumstances are interconnected.
The Court stated that “when co-accused has been denied anticipatory bail, the case of the present applicant stands on a still weaker footing.” In the circumstances of the case, the Court found no sufficient basis to extend the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
The issue of alleged suppression of the earlier bail order was also placed before the Court. The applicant claimed that he was unaware of the co-accused’s proceedings and that the non-disclosure was therefore neither deliberate nor intentional.
The Court nevertheless considered the surrounding circumstances while exercising its discretion. Anticipatory bail is not an absolute entitlement; it is a discretionary remedy intended to protect individuals against unjustified arrest while ensuring that serious criminal investigations are not obstructed.
In deciding whether such protection should be granted, courts commonly consider the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the role attributed to the applicant and the overall circumstances of the case.
Here, the Court found that the allegations were sufficiently serious and supported by material requiring further investigation. The absence of the mother’s thumb impressions on the alleged Will and the denial of its execution by the surviving attesting witness created circumstances that, at the bail stage, weighed against the applicant.
The Court’s reasoning also demonstrates why an allegation of forgery in a property dispute cannot automatically be dismissed as a civil matter. Where the alleged criminal conduct forms the foundation upon which property rights are claimed, the criminal investigation may be necessary to determine how the document came into existence and who was responsible for its preparation or use.
The Court did not pronounce the applicant guilty. Its decision was confined to the question of anticipatory bail. The findings concerning the disputed Will were therefore relevant only for assessing the prima facie circumstances and the applicant’s entitlement to protection from arrest.
The distinction between deciding guilt and assessing bail is important. At trial, the prosecution will have to establish its allegations in accordance with law and the accused will have full opportunity to contest the evidence. At the anticipatory bail stage, however, the Court considers whether the circumstances justify extending protection from arrest before the investigation has reached its conclusion.
The High Court’s decision also underscores the importance of examining the entire sequence of transactions rather than viewing individual events in isolation. The alleged Will, mutation of the property, formation of the company, borrowing arrangement and subsequent sale to the applicant’s son were considered together.
The Court’s approach suggests that where a disputed document is allegedly used to obtain control over property and is followed by transactions designed to alter the property’s ownership or possession, the matter may acquire a criminal character that cannot be neutralized merely by describing it as a family property dispute.
The complainant’s position as a daughter and co-heir also formed part of the factual background. The allegation was that the applicant had deliberately used the purported Will to deprive her of her share in the mother’s property. The Court did not decide her ultimate entitlement to the property,but the allegation of deliberate exclusion was relevant to unde