Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mulla Hasan Nawab vs State Of Mp on 27 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30855
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 27th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45575 of 2025
MULLA HASAN NAWAB
Versus
STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Senior Advocate Shri. Surendra Singh along with Shri. Raghvendra
Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri. Amit Raval - GA for the State.
Shri. Ibrahim Kannodwala - Advocate for the respondent [OBJ].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
1. This first application has been filed by applicant under Section 482
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail
in connection with Crime No. 41 of 2024 registered at Police Station-
Economic Office Wing, Ujjain, District- Ujjain (M.P.) for offence
punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC and
sections 13(1) (c), 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The
applicant is apprehending his arrest in the matter.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the application, submitted that allegedly, the applicant was
working as Secretary of the Wakf, Shia Daudi Bohra Jamat, Anjuman-e-
Wazihi Darul Imarat. He has transferred the property of the Waqf by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30855
executing a sale deed in favour of Pradeep Kumar Jain and Sunita Jain for
a consideration of ₹ 14,80,000 utilising a forged permission letter dated
18.09.2013 of the Administrator, M.P. Waqf Board, Bhopal. Learned
counsel contended that the sale transaction was executed in 2015. The
consideration amount was paid in favour of the Waqf- Shia Daudi Bohra
Jamat,Anjuman-e-Wazihi Darul Imarat. There was no complaint for almost
seven years. The sale deed dated 27.11.2015 was cancelled vide registered
cancellation deed dated 23.06.2016 and the consideration amount was
returned to the purchaser through account payee cheques by the Waqf at
the time of cancellation of the transaction. The property remained in
possession of the Waqf as mentioned in the cancellation deed. In year
2023, the complainant (the objector herein) had filed a complaint to the
Police Station EOW, Ujjain. Learned counsel also submitted that the
applicant co-operated in the investigation by providing his specimen
signatures. Further, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not needed in
the matter. Learned counsel referring to the judgments of the Supreme
Court in cases of Delhi Race Club (1940) Vs. State of U.P. reported in
(2024) 10 SCC 690 and International Advance Research Centre for
P.M. & N.M. Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P)Ltd. & Anr. reported in
(2016) 1 SCC 348, contended that the intention to cheat, from very
inception, was not involved in the present transaction. There was no
entrustment of the property. There is no complaint by or on behalf of the
Wakf- Shia Daudi Bohra Jamat, Anjuman-e-Wazihi Darul Imarat, till date
alleging misdeed against applicant. The applicant is not beneficiary of the
transaction. No wrongful loss to the waqf or the wrongful gain to applicant
was caused in the transaction. Therefore, the offences punishable under
Sections 420 and 409 of IPC are not made out. Learned counsel further
contended that there is no allegation that applicant has forged the
permission letter of the Administrator, M.P. Waqf Board, Bhopal. He is not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30855
maker of the forged document. Therefore, the offences punishable under
Section 467 and 468 of IPC are also not made out against the applicant.
The applicant does not fall within any of the categories enumerated under
Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant is
not a public servant. Further, the permission of competent authority before
initiating the investigation was not sought in the matter as mandated by
Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the offence
relating to Section 13(1)(C), Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act is also not made out against the applicant.
Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant is aged around 56
years. He is working as Secretary at Shia Daudi Bohra Jamat, Anjuman-e-
Wazihi Darul Imarat and a businessman by profession. He enjoys good
character and social reputation and standing. No criminal antecedent is
reported against the applicant. The custodial interrogation of the applicant
is not needed in the matter. Jail incarceration on false accusation would
cause hardship to the applicant and family. He is ready to cooperate in
investigation. Therefore, applicant be extended the benefit of anticipatory
bail.
3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State opposed the bail
application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence. However, he fairly
stated that the report of State Examiner of Questioned Documents does not
directly implicate the applicant. As per the State Examiner report, the
sample handwriting of the applicant does not match completely with the
handwriting on the questioned document i.e. the permission letter of
Administrator, M.P. Waqf Board.
4. The learned counsel for the objector submitted that the applicant is
the executant of the alleged sale deed. A forged permission letter dated
11.09.2013 was used for the purpose of transfer of the property of waqf.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30855
The cancellation of the sale transaction was an attempt to avoid the
consequence of illegal transaction and to conceal the offence already
committed. Applicant did not reveal how he came into possession of a
forged permission letter. Therefore, custodial interrogation of applicant
would be required. The complicity of the applicant is prima facie made
out. The Economic Offence Wing has investigated the matter on the
directions of the High Court, therefore, the legal objections as to formal
complaint by the authorities of the Waqf or permission to investigate does
not apply. Learned Counsel relied on the orders of the Apex Court, Order
dated 21.10.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2022, Order
dated 17.04.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2023 and
Order dated 03.09.1997 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 1997 to
buttress his contentions.
5. According to the material on the case diary, the Economic Offence
Wing, Ujjain registered FIR for offence punishable under Section 420, 409,
467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC and Section 13(1)(C), 13(1)(D) read with
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the applicant
Mulla Hasan Nawab, the then Secretary /Muntazeem of Waqf- Shia Daudi
Bohra Jamat, Anjuman-e-Wazihi Darul Imarat on the complaint of Qasim
Ali s/o Abbas Ali. It was alleged that Mulla Hasan Nawab, working as
Secretary/Muntazeem of Siya Daudi Bohra Jamat. Anjuman-A-Wazihi
Darul Imarat, transferred the property of waqf in favour of Pradeep Kumar
Jain and Sunita Jain for consideration of ₹ 14,80,000 through registered
sale deed dated 27.112015 without authority and authorisation. The
consideration amount was deposited in the account of the waqf. Later, the
sale transaction was cancelled by executing a registered cancellation deed
dated 23.06.2016 and the consideration amount of ₹ 14,80,000 was
returned through account payee cheques of the Waqf- Shia Daudi Bohra
Jamat. The sale transaction was executed utilising a permission letter
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30855
signed by Shri Akshay Singh, Administrator, Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board
Bhopal. It was revealed in the inquiry that Shri Akshay Singh,
Administrator did not sign the permission letter. It was found that the
Secretary, Mulla Hasan Nawab had transferred the property of Waqf
without permission of the Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board. The Secretary,
Mulla Hasan Nawab, assured the purchasers that he has authority and
permission to transfer the land. The Secretary has violated the provisions
of Section 104-A and Section 51 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and used the forged
document for transfer of property. The specimen signature of the applicant
were taken during investigation and forwarded for examination to the State
Examiner of Question Documents, Government of Madhya Pradesh. The
investigation is underway. The applicant is apprehending arrest in the
matter.
6. Apparently, there is no complaint by or on behalf of Waqf - Shia
Daudi Bohra Jamat, Anjuman-e-Wazihi Darul Imarat or the purchasers
alleging cheating, misappropriation or Criminal breach of trust. The
enquiry into the matter was initiated in compliance with the directions of
the High Court to consider the complaint filed by Objector Qasim Ali.
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 mandates prior
permission of the competent authority to initiate enquiry investigation into
offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public
servant in discharge of official functions or duties.
7. Further, the applicant has co-operated in the investigation. The
report of State Examiner of Question Documents, prima facie exonerates
the applicant from the allegation of forging or making a forged document.
The payment of consideration amount by cheque in the account of Wakf
Shia Daudi Bohra Jamat, Anjuman-e-Wazihi Darul Imarat and the return
of consideration amount through account pay cheque of the waqf prima
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30855
facie show that although the applicant was executant of the sale
transaction, no consideration amount was paid to him personally. Any
further observation on the merit of the allegations may cause prejudice to
further investigation and the trial. The veracity of the prosecution and the
intention of the applicant would be determined on completion of
investigation and evidence in the trial.
8. As informed, applicant is aged around 56 years. He is working as
Secretary at Waqf-Shia Daudi Bohra Jamat and a businessman.
Considering the age, profession and status of the applicant, there appears
to be no likelihood of fleeing from justice or involving in any criminal
activity. The prosecution is based on documentary evidence. In absence of
criminal antecedent, considering the socio-economic status of the
applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of tampering with the evidence,
influencing the witness or interfering in the investigation by the applicant.
The incarceration of applicant does not appear to be necessary for the
purpose of investigation. The grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant will
not cause prejudice to free, fair and full investigation. Considering his
clean past, age, status and profession, the applicant may suffer hardship
and prejudice due to incarceration entailing social disrepute and
humiliation. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, but without
commenting on merits of the accusation, this Court is inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicant. Thus, the application is allowed.
9. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant
shall be released on bail in connection with Crime as mentioned in the first
paragraph of this order, upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) with a solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the officer making arrest/the Competent Court
for compliance with the following conditions: (For the convenience of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30855
understanding by accused and surety, the conditions of bail are reproduced
in Hindi as under):-
1) Applicant shall be available for investigation on direction of the
Investigation Officer.
(1) vUos"k.kdrkZ iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds funsZ'kkuqlkj vUos"k.k gsrq vkosnd miyC/k jgsxkA
(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature;
(2) vkosnd leku izd`fr dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha djssxk ;k mlesa lfEefyr ugha gksxkA
(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) vkosnd izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls ifjfpr fdlh O;fDr dks izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls izyksHku]
/kedh ;k opu ugha nsxk] ftlls ,slk O;fDr ,sls rF;ksa dks U;k;ky; ;k iqfyl vf/kdkjh dks izdV
djus ls fuokfjr gkssA
(4) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the
evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness;
(4) vkosnd izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls lk{; ds lkFk NsMNkM djus dk ;k lk{kh ;k lkf{k;ksa dks
cgykus&Qqlykus] ncko Mkyus ;k /kedkus dk iz;kl ugha djsxkA
(5) During trial, the applicant shall ensure due compliance of provisions of
Section 309 of Cr.P.C/346 of the BNSS. regarding examination of witnesses in
attendance;
(5) fopkj.k ds nkSjku] mifLFkr xokgksa ls ijh{k.k ds lac/a k esa vkosnd /kkjk 309 na-iz-la-@346
Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa dk mfpr vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djsaxkA
10. 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 from this order.
11. The Investigation Officer /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/she had explained the conditions to the concerned accused or the
surety.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
amol
