The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a domestic worker accused of fabricating adoption and property documents to claim the estate of his deceased employer.
In an order issued on July 10, Justice Manisha Batra ruled that pre-trial detention should not serve as a punitive measure, reiterating the legal principle that bail is the standard recourse while jail remains the exception. The court noted that the accused had been in custody since late March, the police investigation was complete, and the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.
The legal dispute arose after the brother-in-law of the deceased woman filed a police complaint. According to the First Information Report (FIR), the family noticed missing household items, including a security camera, following the woman’s death. The complainant subsequently accused the household servant of illegally transferring the deceased woman’s property into his own name.
Alleged Fabrication Of Estate Records
During the investigation, police officials reported that the accused had compiled a fraudulent conveyance deed, an unauthorized affidavit, and the deceased woman’s death certificate to secure the property.
The accused subsequently filed a succession petition claiming to be the rightful legal heir to the estate. Police investigators alleged that these records, along with a contested adoption deed, were deliberately forged to secure unlawful financial gain. The man was arrested on March 26, 2026, in connection with the fraud.
Legal Arguments And Court Findings
Appearing for the accused, Advocate Sushil Jain argued that his client had been falsely implicated in the case. The defense contended that the late employer had legally adopted the man in 1990 when he was three years old, raising him as her son. Jain presented supporting documentation to the court, emphasizing that the accused had no prior criminal record and that continued detention served no legal purpose.
State Counsel Advocate Anil Rathee opposed the bail application, arguing that the accused acted with dishonest intent to usurp the deceased woman’s property, given the gravity of the allegations.
Justice Batra observed that the validity of the forgery allegations would only be determined once the trial concluded and the evidence was formally evaluated. The court subsequently ordered the man’s release upon his furnishing personal and surety bonds.
