MP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Forging Mother's Will

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore Bench has refused anticipatory bail to a man accused of forging his deceased mother's will to grab her Ujjain property and cut his sister out of her share, holding that the allegations "go beyond the scope of a civil dispute" and cannot be treated as a mere family property squabble.

Justice Gajendra Singh dismissed the application filed by Shadab Hussain Sarfaraj Hussain, who sought protection from arrest under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 438 of CrPC), in connection with Crime No.547/2025 registered at Police Station Neelganga, Ujjain, for offences of cheating, forgery and using forged documents as genuine under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

According to the prosecution, Shadab Hussain forged a will purportedly executed by his mother, Nafeesa Bano, on June 4, 2013, bequeathing Plot No.1 at Green Park, Shanti Nagar, Ujjain, measuring 4,350 square feet, in his favour. Nafeesa Bano had bought the plot through a registered sale deed in 2006. Her husband died in 2012, and she passed away in 2017, survived by two sons, Shadab Hussain and Shahbaj Hussain and a daughter, Nilofer Bee.

The case originated from a complaint by Nilofer Bee, who alleged that her brother surfaced the will only in 2023, got the plot mutated in his name without the siblings' consent in April 2024, and then transferred it through a registered sale deed in October 2024 to his own son and co-accused, Atif Raja Dehlvi, allegedly to keep her out of any share in their mother's property. Construction of a hotel had reportedly begun on the plot. When police did not act on her complaint, Nilofer Bee moved the High Court through a writ petition, on which the court in March 2025 directed the Neelganga police to investigate and proceed in accordance with law.

The will was subsequently seized, and forensic samples were sent to the Finger Print Bureau, State Crime Record Bureau, Bhopal. Its report concluded that the disputed document did not carry Nafeesa Bano's thumb impression. The sole surviving attesting witness to the will, Mohd Salim, also recorded a statement denying that it had been executed by her.

Shadab Hussain's counsel, Manish Yadav, argued that the prosecution's story was inherently suspicious, that there was no legal evidence against his client, and that a civil suit over the same property was already pending. He submitted that the dispute was purely civil in nature, that his client was financially sound with no reason to flee, and that trial would take considerable time to conclude. He relied on five precedents, including Mohammad Ibrahim v. State of Bihar and V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat, to argue for anticipatory bail.

Advocate Arpit Singh, appearing for the objector, opposed the plea and pointed out that Shadab Hussain had suppressed the fact that his son and co-accused, Atif Raja Dehlvi, had already been denied anticipatory bail in December 2025. Yadav responded that no record of those proceedings appeared on the High Court's website, so the omission was unintentional. The court found this explanation unconvincing, especially since the co-accused was the applicant's own son, but chose to examine the case on merits regardless. Government Advocate Rahul Solanki appeared for the State.

Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Nikita Jagganath Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated that anticipatory bail is "an exceptional remedy" reserved for cautious and judicious exercise, and not to be granted routinely, particularly where its grant "may lead to miscarriage of justice" or hamper investigation.

Weighing the fingerprint report, the witness's denial and the property transfers benefiting the applicant's own son, the court held that the facts went beyond a civil dispute. It also noted that with the co-accused denied bail, the applicant's case stood on "a still weaker footing." Concluding that none of the precedents cited helped the applicant's case, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

Case Title: Shadab Hussain Sarfaraj Hussain vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: August 10, 2026

Bench: Justice Gajendra Singh