Aadersh Kumar Uttam vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

The applicant has filed this First bail application under Section 482 of BNSS/438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.160/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Lashkar, Gwalior (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120 (B), 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

As per the prosecution story, on 08.07.2022, the complainant, Prem Mishra, went to Police Station Kotwali Lashkar and submitted a written complaint. In his complaint, he stated that the agricultural land of his wife, late Shubh Mishra, is situated in Village Jaurasi, Tehsil Dabra, District Gwalior (M.P.). It is alleged that the complainant’s brother-in-law and his son, Aadarsh Uttam, conspired together and, with the help of witnesses Ashok Kumar Anand and Dharam Singh, prepared a forged will. It is further alleged that the signatures of late Shubh Mishra on the said will are forged. The will was notarized by Notary Advocate Pradeep Dubey on 02.04.2021. Based on these allegations, Police Station Kotwali Lashkar registered Crime No. 160/2022 for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC. Thereafter, after a period of three years, the police added Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the applicant had filed Civil Suit No. 58-A/2022 before the Civil Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior on 12.04.2022, and the said suit is still pending adjudication. In this civil suit, complainant Prem Mishra has been made respondent No. 1. After receiving knowledge of this civil suit, and with the intention of exerting pressure on the applicant, the complainant maliciously lodged the present FIR on 08.07.2022 with an ulterior motive to harass the applicant and to settle personal scores. The dispute regarding the will is already pending before the Civil Court. The complainant knowingly and deliberately lodged a false complaint. In fact, complainant himself had turned Subh Mishra out of the house as she had no children, and therefore she lived at her parental home throughout her life. Her medical expenses were borne by the applicant, and the last rites were also performed by the applicant. Subh Mishra had received the disputed property from her father and had died issue-less. As per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, her husband cannot inherit her property. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Court, after examining all circumstances of the case and relying on the judgment in Ajay Kumar Pandey (supra), had already granted anticipatory bail. The prosecution has mechanically added additional sections after a lapse of three years. It is further submitted that the handwriting expert’s report is not conclusive in nature. It is a settled principle of criminal law that suspicion or doubt cannot take the place of evidence. To bolster his submission he has placed reliance in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another (2009) 8 SCC 751 and also in the case of Preeti Gautam Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Revision No.3929 of 2022 decided on 31.10.2022). It was further submitted that the applicant undertakes to cooperate in investigation/trial and would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment in any manner to the complainant party side. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and condition as imposed by this Court. Under these grounds, learned counsel prayed for anticipatory bail.

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application and submits that at the time of the applicant’s earlier anticipatory bail application, the case was registered only under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, and the matter was under investigation. During further investigation, scientific and expert evidence has been collected. On the basis of this material, more serious offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC have now been added. Therefore, there is a substantial and material change in circumstances compared to the situation when the earlier anticipatory bail was granted. These changed circumstances were not in existence at that time. Considering the gravity of the enhanced offences, the seriousness of the allegations, and the severity of the punishment, the applicant/accused is not entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail. The applicant is the main accused, in whose favour the alleged forged Will is stated to have been executed. His role is different and more serious than that of co-accused Shakti Kumar Uttam, who has been released on bail. Hence, the applicant cannot claim parity with the co-accused. In view of the above circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the anticipatory bail application be dismissed.

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

From perusal of record, it shows that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, is alleged to have forged the signatures of the deceased Smt. Shubha Mishra and prepared a false Will (Vasiyatnama) with the intention of illegally acquiring valuable agricultural land belonging to her. The police investigation further indicates that the disputed Will contains signatures which, as per the expert’s opinion from the State Examiner, do not match the admitted and natural signatures of the deceased obtained from the SBI Bank documents and registered sale deeds. The opinion supports the prosecution’s case that the document was fabricated and fraudulently prepared. The offences alleged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC are grave, involving preparation of forged documents to wrongfully gain ownership of immovable property.

It appears from the record that when the applicant’s earlier anticipatory bail was granted, the case was registered only under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and the investigation was at a preliminary stage.

Subsequently, during further investigation, scientific and expert opinion has been obtained. On the basis of this new material, more serious offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC relating to forgery of valuable documents have been added. These offences are graver in nature and attract substantially higher punishment. These developments constitute a material and substantial change in circumstances, which were not in existence at the time the earlier bail order was passed. The allegations now supported by expert evidence indicate the preparation and use of a forged Will in favour of the applicant, suggesting his primary and central role in the alleged conspiracy. His position, therefore, cannot be equated with co-accused Shakti Kumar Uttam, who stands on a different footing and has been granted bail on separate considerations.

At this stage, custodial interrogation of the applicant appears necessary to ascertain the manner of preparation of the forged Will, the role of each accused, the source of documents used, and the involvement of others who assisted in the alleged conspiracy. In view of the gravity of the newly added offences, the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the forged document, and the specific role attributed to the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation is necessary and that the applicant is not entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.