[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37569
1 MCRC-57304-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 19th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57304 of 2025
MANOJ KUMAR VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Gupta - Senior Advocate with Ms Muskan Pahuja -
Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Apoorv Joshi - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Maqbool Ahmed Mansoori - Advocate for the respondent
[COMP].
ORDER
This first application has been filed by the applicant under Section 483
of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 277/2025
registered at Police Station - Mahidpur, District - Ujjain(M.P.) for offence
punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(1), 340(2) and 61(2) of
BNS, 2023. Applicant is in judicial custody since 18.07.2025.
Heard the arguments.
Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case
diary and the relevant material on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the application submits that the Narayan Singh and Rajpal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37569
2 MCRC-57304-2025
Singh had purchased the plot as well as the agricultural land from
complainant Jagdish Chandra Jaiswal. Jagdish Chandra Jaiswal had received
entire consideration amount and thereafter, executed the sale deed in favour
of purchaser Narayan Singh and Rajpal Singh. Later, Jagdish Chandra
Jaiswal resiled from the transaction and made false accusations against the
applicant. Learned counsel further submits that mediator Manoj Kumar
Verma (applicant) was apprehended on 18.07.2025 at the initial stage of
investigation. He informed the police that in the morning of 07.07.2025, all
of them including the purchasers, went to the residence of Advocate
Ramchandra Jaiswal, brother of Jagdish Chandra Jaiswal, where the
purchaser had paid the consideration amount in cash to Jagdish Chandra
Jaiswal, which was videographed by Lakhan. The police, instead of finding
the video for sale transaction and verfying the payment of consideration,
conducted the the investigation against applicant in biased manner. The
video of payment of cash is available with the accused Lakhan Sharma. The
only allegation against the applicant is that he was the service provider and
mediator in the sale transaction. No offence, as alleged, is committed by the
applicant. The final report has been submitted. The prosecution is based on
documentary evidences. There is no likelihood of tampering with evidence
by the applicant. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the applicant and
the dependent family. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial. Co-
accused Teju Singh has been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail vide
order dated 18.08.2025 passed in MCRC no. 35833/2025 and Co-accused
Narayan Singh has been extended benefit of regular bail vide order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37569
3 MCRC-57304-2025
03.12.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 54813/2025.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State ably assisted by learned
counsel for the objector opposes the application on the ground of gravity of
alleged offence. Learned counsel further referring to the statement of Clerk
Santosh Katlana, Sub-Registrar Pyarelal Solanki and the information memo
of Sonu contends that the Sub-Registrar was not present at the time of
verification of the sale deed. The tower location of mobile of Sub-Registrar
also substantiates this fact. It supports the accusation by Jagdish Chandra
Jaiswal. It goes to show that there was forgery in the transaction. The
complainant is defrauded and cheated and a fake sale deed was executed
manipulating the Sampada 2.0 software. The applicant is beneficiary of the
fraudulent transaction.
However, after going through the case diary, learned counsel for the
State fairly states that no criminal antecedent is reported against the
applicant.
In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the mobile
number of Kuldeep was used with the consent of the seller Jagdishchand
Jaiswal to facilitate ease of process for registration of sale deed. The draft
sale deeds were uploaded on Sampada 2.0 Software to reserve slot for
registration, a day prior to the registration after IRIS scan of the complainant.
The complainant was assisted by his relatives throughout the process.
Learned counsel submits that the sale deed was duly registered u/S 35 of the
Registration Act, 1908 after inquiry contemplated u/S 34 of the Act by the
Registrar. Learned counsel further referring to the judgments of Supreme
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37569
4 MCRC-57304-2025
Court in the cases of Bellachi (dead) by LR Vs. Paqeeran reported in 2009
Supreme (SC) 525; Manik Majumdar & Ors Vs. Deepak K Saha reported in
AIR 2023 SC 506 , Jameela Begum Vs. Mohd Sami reported in AIR 2019
SC 72 and Prem Singh Vs. Birbal reported in AIR 2006 SC 3608 contends
that the registration of sale deed reinforces valid execution and carries
presumption of validity. The sale deeds have been duly verified by digital
signature of the Sub-Registrar, which bears the system-generated date and
time. It shows that the Sub-Registrar was present at the relevant time in the
office and verified the sale transaction. There is apparent inconsistency in the
oral statements.
According to the material available on case diary, Jagdish Chandra
Jaiswal submitted a written complaint dated 13.07.2025 to SHO, P.S.
Mahidpur, inter-alia alleging that Narayan Singh and Rajpal Singh
approached him for sale of a plot for Rs. 20 Lakhs. They had given him
cheque dated 07.07.2025 of Rs. 2 Lakhs as an advance consideration towards
purchase of the plot, but Narayan Singh, Rajpal Singh and Manoj
Verma(applicant) with the assistance of a Clerk (Santosh Katlana of the Sub-
Registrar Office, got two sale deeds executed by committing fraud upon
him. He did not sell the land comprised in Survey No. 94/3 and 95/1, but
Narayan Singh, Rajpal Singh, Manoj Verma and the Clerk of Sub-Registrar
Office also registered sale deed of his agricultural land. When the forgery
and fraud was revealed to him, he approached the police authority. The
complaint submitted by Jagdish Chandra Jaiswal was inquired. It was
revealed that Narayan Singh, Rajpal Singh, Manoj Kumar, Lakhan Sharma,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37569
5 MCRC-57304-2025
Teju Singh had defrauded the complainant and instead of registering single
sale deed with regard to purchase of plot, they got registered another sale
deed with regard to purchase of agricultural land by using mobile number of
Kuldeep and a fake email ID under the Sampada 2.0 software. It was further
alleged that the Sub-Registrar, Pyarelal Solanki was not present at the time of
verification of identity of parties and factum of sale transaction between the
parties. The Sub-Registrar authenticated the sale transaction later.
Accordingly, the P.S. Mahidpur registered FIR at Crime No. 277/2025 for
offence punishable u/S 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(1), 340(2) and 61(2) of the
BNS, 2023 against Narayan Singh, Rajpal Singh, Manoj Kumar Verma,
Kuldeep Rawal and Teju Singh. The applicant Manoj Kumar Verma was
arrested on 18.07.2025. He is in custody ever since. Later, Sonu Mansoori
and Lakhan Sharma were also implicated as accused. The prosecution is
based on documentary evidence and the verification of the digital evidence
relating to execution of the sale deed. There is no likelihood of tampering
with such documentary and digital evidence by the applicant. The final report
has been submitted on completion of investigation. The trial would take time to
conclude. The contentions raised by applicant have prima-facie substance.
The veracity of accusation with regard to non-payment of consideration
amount, fraud in execution of sale deed or due execution of the sale deed in
favour of the purchasers will be determined after evidence in trial.
As informed, the applicant is aged around 47 years and is a Service
Provider by profession. He has family responsibilities. Considering these
aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37569
6 MCRC-57304-2025
of any criminal antecedent, considering the socio-economic status of the
applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of tampering with evidence or
influencing the witnesses by the applicant. There appears to be no
compelling reason to continue incarceration of the young applicant.
However, the observations, herein-above, are recorded for present
application only.
Considering the rival contentions and overall circumstances of the
case, in the light of aforestated facts, but without commenting on the merits,
this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail. Thus, the application is
allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that applicant- Manoj Kumar
Verma shall be released on bail in connection with Crime, as mentioned in
first paragraph of this order, upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of the same
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for compliance with the
following conditions : (For convenience of understanding by accused and
surety, the conditions of bail are also reproduced in Hindi asunder):-
(1) Applicant shall remain present on every date of hearing as may be directed
by the concerned court;
(1) आवेदक संबंिधत यायालय के िनदशानुसार सुनवाई क येक ितिथ पर उप थत रहे गा ।
(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature;
(2) आवेदक समान कृ ित का केाई अपराध नह ं करे गा या उसम स मिलत नह ं होगा ।
(3) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
them/him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer;
(3) आवेदक करण के त य से प रिचत कसी य को य या अ य प से लोभन,
धमक या वचन नह ं दे गा, जससे ऐसा य ऐसे त य को यायालय या पुिलस अिधकार को
कट करने से िनवा रत हो ।
(4) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the
evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness;
(4) आवदे क य या अ य प से सा य के साथ छे डछाड करने का या सा ी या सा य को
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37569
7 MCRC-57304-2025
बहलाने-फुसलाने, दबाव डालने या धमकाने का यास नह ं करे गा ।
(5) During trial, the applicant shall ensure due compliance of provisions of
Section 309 of Cr.P.C./346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
regarding examination of witnesses in attendance;
(5) वचारण के दौरान, उप थत गवाह से पर ण के संबंध म आवेदक धारा ३०९ दं . .सं./ ३४६
भारतीय नाग रक सुर ा सं हता, 2023 के ावधान का उिचत अनुपालन सुिन त करे गा ।
This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of
breach of any of the preconditions of bail, the trial Court may consider, on
merit, cancellation of bail without any impediment of this order.
The trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on the personal
bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned. If any of
them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he had explained the
conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
