[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajpal Singh 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-57076-2025
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. 57076 of 2025
RAJPAL SINGH
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 applicant had purchased the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37569
2 MCRC-57076-2025
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 purchasers - Narayan
Singh and applicant - Rajpal Singh. Later, Jagdish Chandra Jaiswal resiled
from the transaction and made false accusation against the applicant.
Learned counsel further submits that mediator Manoj Verma 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 to verify the payment of
consideration, conducted the investigation against applicant in biased
manner. The video of payment of cash is available with the accused -
Lakhan. 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. The similarly situated
Co-accused Narayan Singh has been extended benefit of regular bail vide
order dated 03.12.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 54813/2025.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State, ably assisted by learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37569
3 MCRC-57076-2025
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 submits that no criminal antecedent is reported against the
applicant.
In reply, learned counsel for the applicant referring to the information
memo of Manoj Verma, the service provider 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 son and nephew 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
Court in the cases of Bellachi (dead) by LR Vs. Paqeeran reported in 2009
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37569
4 MCRC-57076-2025
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
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(applicant)
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
with the assistance of a clerk of the Sub-Registrar Office, Santosh Katlana,
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, Teju Singh had defrauded the
complainant and instead of registering single sale deed with regard to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37569
5 MCRC-57076-2025
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(applicant), Manoj Kumar Verma, Kuldeep
Rawal and Teju Singh. The applicant - Rajpal was arrested on 18.07.2025.
He is in custody ever since. Narayan Singh and Rajpal Singh are implicated
in the matter for the reason that they are purchasers in the said transaction.
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 due 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 21 years and is
agriculturist by profession. He has family responsibilities. Considering these
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37569
6 MCRC-57076-2025
aspects, there appears to be no possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence
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- Rajpal Singh 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37569
7 MCRC-57076-2025
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
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
