Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Accused in Temple Property Forgery Case, Notes Withholding of Original Allegedly Forged Will Hampered Investigation
Facts
The Delhi High Court considered two regular bail applications filed by Pradeep Sharma and Prayagraj Sharma in FIR No. 35/2024 registered at Police Station Chandni Mahal for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
The prosecution case was that Pandit Shiv Ram Sharma had constructed a temple and five shops in the subject premises. Since he had no Class-I legal heir, he allegedly executed a registered Will dated 27 February 1985 in favour of his nephew Sahab Singh, the complainant. He also executed a Gift Deed, General Power of Attorney and Indemnity Bond in favour of the complainant. After Pandit Shiv Ram Sharma’s death on 25 June 1985, the property was mutated in favour of the complainant in Revenue Department and MCD records.
The prosecution further alleged that the applicants, who are sons of Krishna @ Kisso, a priest earlier engaged for temple work, submitted a forged Will and other forged documents before the MCD in 2019 to claim ownership over the property. It was also alleged that forged rent receipts were created in the names of tenants occupying the five shops and were used in civil proceedings.
Issues
Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail after filing of the chargesheet.
Whether the allegations were merely civil in nature or disclosed serious offences of forgery and use of forged documents.
Whether the conduct of the applicants in not producing the original allegedly forged Will was relevant for deciding bail.
Whether continued custody was justified at the present stage of the proceedings.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The applicants argued that they had been falsely implicated and that if any forgery was committed, it was allegedly done by their father, who had already passed away.
They contended that no civil court had declared the Will in question to be forged, and therefore criminal proceedings could not proceed merely on the allegation of forgery. They also argued that the complainant had not sought probate of the Will in his favour and had no locus to lodge the complaint.
It was further submitted that the applicants had clean antecedents, had surrendered after dismissal of their anticipatory bail applications, and that since the chargesheet had already been filed, no purpose would be served by keeping them in custody.
The applicants also claimed that they were not in possession of the original Will alleged to be forged because it had been lost, though they admitted that no police complaint regarding such loss had been lodged.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State and the complainant opposed bail, arguing that the allegations were not limited to the Will alone but also included forgery of rent receipts and rent agreements.
The State submitted that the applicants had used the forged Will for seeking mutation of the property in their names. It was further argued that they had filed eviction proceedings against tenants on the basis of forged rent receipts, and the FSL report showed that the signatures of tenants on those receipts were forged.
The prosecution also argued that the applicants were attempting to grab property that had devolved upon the complainant. A major objection raised was that the applicants had not handed over the original allegedly forged Will for forensic analysis, which indicated culpability and hampered investigation.
Analysis of the Law
The Court treated the allegations as serious because the case involved alleged use of forged documents before public authorities and courts. The Court noted that in bail proceedings, the conduct of the accused, nature of allegations, stage of proceedings, and possibility of hampering investigation are relevant considerations.
The Court also found that the applicants’ failure to produce the original allegedly forged Will was a vital circumstance, particularly because the same document formed the basis of their claim of ownership over the property.
Precedent Analysis
No specific precedent was discussed in the order. The Court decided the bail applications on the facts of the case, the nature of allegations, the stage of proceedings, and the applicants’ conduct in withholding the original allegedly forged document.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that the applicants had surrendered on 20 February 2026 after dismissal of their anticipatory bail applications, the chargesheet had been filed, and the case before the Trial Court was at the stage of consideration of charge.
However, the Court held that the conduct of the applicants in not handing over the original allegedly forged Will was significant. Had the original Will been produced before the Investigating Officer, it could have been sent for forensic analysis.
The Court further observed that the applicants allegedly used forged documents, including the Will and rent receipts, not only before the Revenue Department and Municipality but also in courts. The Court considered this to be a serious allegation.
Keeping in mind the manner in which the alleged offences were committed, the stage of proceedings, and the withholding of documents, the Court held that the applicants were not entitled to bail at this stage.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed both regular bail applications. It held that the allegations were serious and that the applicants’ conduct in withholding the original allegedly forged Will, thereby hampering investigation, weighed against grant of bail.
Case: Pradeep Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi; Prayagraj Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1301/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 1575/2026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 2 July 2026
Result: Regular bail applications dismissed.
