Criminal Law Must Not Be Used to Revive Stale Civil Disputes: Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Alleged Land Grab and Forgery Case

"Registered deeds, public records and unexplained delay cast serious doubt over the bona fides of prosecution" –  In a significant ruling Bombay High Court (Justice Amit Borkar) granted anticipatory bail to Shyamsundar Radhyesham Agarwal in a case involving serious allegations of land grab and forgery. The judgment addresses the legal balance between protecting personal liberty and ensuring an effective criminal investigation. The Court, while invoking principles of law under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, underscored that “criminal law cannot be invoked to unsettle transactions that have stood acknowledged, acted upon and affirmed over years unless there is compelling and immediate material showing deliberate fraud not discoverable earlier.”

The FIR in question (No. 559 of 2025) was registered at Thane Nagar Police Station against the applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 of the IPC, alleging criminal conspiracy, forgery of documents, and fraudulent land transactions relating to protected tenancy lands governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

“Delay of Over a Decade in Filing FIR Raises Doubt About Prosecution’s Bona Fides”

The Court’s primary observation centred on the unexplained delay of nearly 12–15 years between the impugned transactions (dating back to 2003–2011) and the filing of the FIR in 2025. Justice Borkar held that “the delay in lodging the FIR is not a mere technicality—it affects the reliability of the accusation and raises a serious question whether the grievance is genuine or a belated attempt to unsettle a settled title.”

The applicant contended that the conveyance deed (2008) and rectification deed (2011) were registered and acted upon for over a decade, during which permissions under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act were duly obtained after inquiry. Moreover, civil suits were filed, and even consent terms were entered into by parties—showing that the transactions were not clandestine.

Justice Borkar agreed: “The combined effect of registration of instruments, grant of statutory permission after inquiry, civil settlements, and prolonged inaction on the part of the heirs creates a presumption that the transactions had attained finality in the ordinary course of affairs.”

Forgery Allegations Cannot Be Brushed Aside, But Do Not Justify Custodial Interrogation at This Stage

While the Court accepted that allegations such as tampering with 7/12 extracts and using incorrect revenue records (substituting land from Navghar with that of Godev village) were serious in nature, it found no material justifying immediate custodial interrogation.

Quoting the judgment: “If it is ultimately established that an extract pertaining to one village was annexed in place of another, or that mandatory entries were removed, such conduct would amount to tampering with public records. Yet, these are matters for investigation and not grounds to arrest in haste.”

The Court emphasised that the applicant had already cooperated with the investigation during interim protection, produced documents when called, and had not shown signs of absconding or obstructing the process. Importantly, it noted that co-accused (Shubham and Sharad Agrawal) had already been granted bail, and custodial statements implicating the applicant were not substantive evidence at this stage.

“Investigation often proceeds in stages… but such tasks do not, by themselves, require the physical custody of the accused,” the Court observed, reiterating that custodial interrogation must be based on necessity, not convenience.

Supreme Court’s “Pratibha Manchanda” Judgment Distinguished

The prosecution had heavily relied on Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 181, where anticipatory bail was denied in a land forgery case despite the delay. However, the Court held the facts to be materially different.

“In Manchanda, the forged document never surfaced for nearly two decades and was hidden. In the present case, the documents are not only registered but have formed part of the public record since 2008 and 2011. They were examined by statutory authorities and civil courts. Therefore, the delay here remains a relevant factor.”

Justice Borkar clarified that Manchanda does not lay down a blanket rule to ignore delay in all land grab or forgery cases. Instead, he held, “The delay must be assessed in the context of the complainant’s knowledge and the nature of the alleged forgery.”

Antecedents Alone Cannot Deny Bail When There’s No Pattern of Obstruction

The applicant’s criminal record — 35 to 42 cases — was a major argument against granting bail. However, the Court declined to treat it as conclusive. “Antecedents call for vigilance, not incarceration,” the Court observed, adding that many of the cases had resulted in acquittals, quashing, or closure through summary reports.

“The Court must undertake a qualitative assessment, not a numerical one,” Justice Borkar remarked, observing that “liberty must be preserved while investigation must be protected through enforceable conditions.”

Anticipatory Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions

Considering the cumulative weight of public record, civil settlements, unexplained delay, and the absence of necessity for custodial interrogation, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant subject to strict conditions, including weekly reporting, deposit of passport, no contact with co-accused or witnesses, and full cooperation with the investigation.

The Court was careful to emphasise that the order “shall not affect the civil rights of the parties,” and clarified that “civil proceedings may continue independently and without being prejudiced by this criminal adjudication.”

Justice Amit Borkar’s ruling reinforces a critical jurisprudential principle—that criminal process must not be used as an instrument to unsettle long-concluded civil transactions unless compelling evidence of fraud, not previously discoverable, is shown. It strikes a considered balance between protecting liberty and ensuring justice.

The judgment will likely serve as an important precedent in cases involving stale criminal complaints arising out of civil property disputes, especially where public documents and state permissions have remained unchallenged for years.

Date of Decision: 25 November 2025