Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vipul Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59312
1 MCRC-44763-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 20th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44763 of 2025
VIPUL YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Mishra -
Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Shailendra Mishra - Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.
Shri Priyankush Jain - Advocate for the respondent/objector.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44757 of 2025
VIPUL YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Mishra -
Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Shailendra Mishra - Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.
Shri Priyankush Jain - Advocate for the respondent/objector.
ORDER
These are the first applications filed by the applicant under Section
482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with Crime No.333/2024 in M.Cr.C. No.44763/2025 and Crime
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59312
2 MCRC-44763-2025
No.334/2024 in M.Cr.C. No.44757/2025 registered at Police Station Budhni,
District Sehore (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that these
bail applications are entertainable as he has challenged the proceedings
initiated against the applicant under Section 82/84 of Cr.P.C. in the light of
the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Asha Dubey
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Cr.A. No.4564/2024 arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No.13123/2024 vide order dated 12.11.2024 and has submitted that it
is the allegation against the applicant that he was a partner along with Mrs.
Vimla Bai for development of a colony. It is alleged that he has forged the
agreement to sale and on that basis, the FIR was registered against him in the
year, 2024.
3. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that basically
the agreement was genuine and after obtaining the TNCP permission, the
complainant with malice intention has stated that the document has been
forged and to support the complainant's version, the police examined the
document by the handwriting expert and handwriting expert has opined that
document to be forged one as it does not bear the signatures of the executant.
On that point, learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
Notary who has verified the factum of agreement Mr. Kailash Singh
Chauhan, in his statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS/161 of
Cr.P.C., has supported that the agreement to sale was executed.
4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has also submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59312
3 MCRC-44763-2025
sale-deed was executed in the year, 2021 and TNCP permission as alleged
was granted in the year, 2021 and intimation was sent to Vikas Babbar,
Sanjay Babbar and Rajesh Babbar and after that, they remained mum for
three years and in the year, 2024, they filed the complaint which shows their
malice/mala fide intention. At this stage, when the anticipatory bail
application is to be considered on the basis of opinion of handwriting expert,
it could not be assumed that the applicant had committed the offence.
Applicant is a practicing Advocate and he is regularly appearing before the
Court, he has recorded his statement before the I.O. in the year, 2024 itself
and he is not absconding.
5. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has further submitted that
when this agreement to sale was disputed, the colony developer has filed
another application along with alternate land for the passage/approach road
to colony and the TNCP has granted the sanction, hence, the applicant be
given the benefit of anticipatory bail.
6. Learned counsel for the objector has opposed the anticipatory bail
application and has submitted that two agreements to sale were executed and
two sanctions were obtained from the TNCP. From the opinion of the
handwriting expert, it is clear that the documents were forged as the
executant has denied the above factum of the execution of agreement to sale.
7. Learned counsel for the objector has submitted that basically Mrs.
Vimla Bai was the owner of the land over which the colony was developed
but as per the agreement dated 15.06.2021, it is clear that Vipul Yadav was
the partner and second party of the agreement. As per Clause-5 of that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59312
4 MCRC-44763-2025
agreement, out of total income received from selling the plots, 53% was to
be given to Mrs. Vimla Bai whereas 47% was given to be given to Vipul
Yadav. Thus, it is clear that Vipul Yadav was the original person who got the
sanction.
8. Learned counsel for the objector has further submitted that the
sanction of the TNCP was based on the basis of documents and those were
considered and clearly opined that for the passage/approach road, the
agreement has been filed, hence, this agreement was base document for
granting the permission.
9. Learned counsel for the objector has further submitted that the
colony developer has plotted his own land but for the approach road, he has
shown the land of the complainant, thus, it is a clear that it is the case of
forgery and cheating, hence, no case of anticipatory bail is made out as the
applicant is absconding and proceeding under Section 82/84 has been
initiated against him.
10. Learned counsel for the objector has further submitted that the
applicant is a person who was behind the whole proceedings and neither his
conduct is clear nor he has disclosed the fact before the Court that proceeding
Section 82 has already been initiated against him, hence, no case of
anticipatory bail is made out.
11. Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the bail application
and has submitted that the applicant is not entitled to be released on
anticipatory bail.
12. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59312
5 MCRC-44763-2025
diary.
13. I have gone through the report, there is a dispute regarding
execution of agreement to sale. The agreement to sale was executed in the
year, 2021 and TNCP sanction was obtained in the year, 2021. It is also clear
from the sanction order that intimation was sent to complainant party and
from the year 2021 to 2024, no civil proceedings or criminal proceedings
were initiated by the complainant and it is a case of so-called
tampering/forging the documents which could be decided after the full trial.
14. Looking to the statement of the Notary Kailash Singh Chauhan, the
documents available on record without going into the merit or expressing any
opinion in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the
case of Asha Dubey (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow the
applications. Thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
the applications are allowed.
15. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be
enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before him during
the course of investigation or before the trial Court concerned during trial, as
the case may be.
16. The applicant is directed to cooperate with the investigating
agency and also appear on the date and time as directed by the Investigating
Officer.
17. The applicant if required, shall submit all the relevant documents
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:59312
6 MCRC-44763-2025
like the samples of handwriting, thumb impression and signature in his
possession. The applicant shall not repeat the offence.
18. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly induce or threaten any
prosecution witness and he shall not directly or indirectly contact to the
complainant or his family members.
19. It is further directed that the applicant shall abide by all the
conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.
20. Accordingly, these applications stand disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
AT
