The Madhya Pradesh High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of forging his mother's will to exclude his sister from the share in the property. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 329]

Noting that the said Will did not bear the thumb impressions of the mother and the sole surviving attesting witness has denied its execution, the bench of Justice Gajendra Singh observed,

"...the matter cannot be treated as a mere civil dispute; rather, it goes beyond the scope of a civil dispute. Moreover, when co- accused has been denied anticipatory bail, the case of the present applicant stands on a still weaker footing. Therefore, the applicant cannot be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail".

Per the prosecution, the applicant forged a will executed by his mother on June 4, 2013, regarding a plot in the Ujjain area in favour of the applicant.

The mother had two sons and one daughter. The case arose from the complaint of the sister, wherein she claimed that the applicant had prepared a forged will and disclosed the same in 2023. She claimed that the applicant mutated the plot in his name without her consent and transferred the same through a sale deed of October 16,2 024 in favour of co-accused (applicant's son). She claimed that the said actions were taken by the applicant to exclude her share in her mother's property,

Per the fingerprinting expert, the purported Will claimed to be executed by the mother does not bear the thumb impressions of the mother.

The counsel for the applicant claimed that the story of the prosecution is suspicious, contending that there was no legal evidence to show that the applicant forged the Will.

An application was filed by the Objector/sister, who claimed that the fact that the co-accused's application was dismissed was not disclosed to the court. The applicant claimed that he had no knowledge of the proceedings and therefore the non-disclosure was neither deliberate nor intentionally concealed.

The court noted that the primary issue of consideration was whether it was a civil dispute or a case where documents were forged to oust the share of a female member.

The court noted that the material collected shows that when the sister claimed a share in the mother's property, the Will of June 4, 2013, came into picture, and it was revealed that the property was mutated in the name of the applicant, and M/s Shalimar Associates was formed on November 20, 2023.

The bench also noted that a loan was taken in the name of the company with a co-borrower naming the present applicant. It was also noted that a sale deed was executed by the applicant in favour of his son.

The court held, "the matter cannot be treated as a mere civil dispute; rather, it goes beyond the scope of a civil dispute".

Further, the bench held that dismissal of the co-accused's application further weakens the applicant's case. Therefore, the court dismissed the application.

Case Title: Shadab Hussain v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC. No. 25031 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 329

For Applicant: Advocate Manish Yadav

For State: Government Advocate Rahul Solanki

For Respondent: Advocate Arpit Singh

Click here to read/download the Order