[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Bhilala vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9191
1 MCRC-13064-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13064 of 2026
RAMESH BHILALA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rishiraj Ayachi, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
1. This second bail application has been filed by applicant under
Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of
regular bail in connection with Crime No.171/2022 registered at Police
Station-Nalkheda, District-Agar Malwa(M.P.) for offence punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 506, 451, 384, 120-B, 294 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
Applicant is in judicial custody since 08.12.2024. His first bail application
has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.04.2025, passed in
M.Cr.C. No.1722/2025 with liberty to revive his prayer after completion of
statement of the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends
that the complainant was not examined for the reason of vacancy in the trial
Court since 14.11.2025. Almost six months has lapsed. The applicant has
undergone custody for the period more than one year. There is no likelihood
of filling of vacancy in near future.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9191
2 MCRC-13064-2026
2. Heard the arguments.
3. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case
diary and the relevant material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the application, submits that the applicant is falsely implicated
in the alleged offence It is a case of civil dispute between the parties.
Learned counsel contends that allegedly, an agreement to sale took place
between the applicant and the complainant regarding sale of immovable
property. The applicant did not conceal the fact that prior permission of the
Collector would be required for sale of property as he belongs to the
Scheduled Tribe. The agreement to sale incorporates this condition.
Therefore, intention to defraud at the inception of the transaction cannot be
inferred against the applicant. Learned counsel referring to the judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311 contends that mere non-
performance of agreement to sale or its refusal does not constitute cheating.
The advance payment was made towards consideration in reference to
agreement to sale. The complainant had remedy of suit for specific
performance or recovery of the advance consideration amount but instead of
approaching the Civil Court, this prosecution is filed as an arm twisting
mechanism to pressurize the applicant to extract money. No offence, as
alleged, is committed by the applicant. The final report has been submitted
on completion of investigation. There is no likelihood of tampering with
evidence by the applicant. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9191
3 MCRC-13064-2026
applicant and the dependent family. Applicant is ready to cooperate in trial.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application
on the ground of gravity of alleged offence. Learned counsel further refers
to two criminal antecedents reported against the applicant registered at Crime
No.145/2018 for offence punishable under Sections 498A r/w Section 34 of
IPC and Crime No.248/2022 of similar nature, as mentioned in the case
diary. The applicant is aged 62 years and is an agriculturist by profession.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been acquitted in Crime No.145/2018. He further submits that
in Crime No.248/2022 lodged by the same complainant, all the proceedings
has been quashed vide order dated 23.01.2024, passed in M.Cr.C.
No.2250/2024. No previous prosecution is pending against the applicant.
7. As per accusation on case diary, Santosh Joshi submitted a typed
complaint to SHO of P.S. Nalkheda, District Agar Malwa inter alia stating
that Ramesh S/o Umrao Singh Bhilala(applicant), Ishwar S/o Umrao, Mohd.
Zubed Abdul Salam and Mohd. Farukh approached him for sale of
agricultural land in village Nalkheda. They proposed to sell him the land @
Rs. 22 Lakhs per Bigha for total consideration of Rs.3,04,70,000/-. Ramesh
and Kishore belongs to Bheel community. When he confronted them, they
assured him that they will get the permission to sale the land from the
Collector. The accused induced and threatened him for payment of advance
consideration. He entered into agreement trusting the assurance given by
Ramesh and Kishore and paid in all Rs.55.00 Lakhs in furtherance of the
agreement to sale of the land. Ramesh and Kishore executed an agreement
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9191
4 MCRC-13064-2026
dated 01.04.2021 on stamp and endorsed receipt of money on the back page
of the agreement. Later, he came to know that Ramesh and Kishore in
association with Zubed, Salam and Farukh have executed the sale-deed of
plots of land comprised in the agreement with him. They have sought
permission from the Collector for sale of agricultural land, but they sold the
plots to Geetanjali Patidar and Hemlata. When he asked for return of
advance money, the accused abused him in filthy language and threatened to
kill him. Accused came to his house and threatened to implicate him in a
false case. On such allegations, P.S. Nalkheda registered FIR for offence
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506, 451, 384, 120-B, 294 r/w
Section 34 of IPC. The applicant was arrested on 08.12.2024. He is in
custody ever since. The final report was submitted on completion of
investigation. The agreement to sale dated 01.04.2021 specifically mentions
that the sale deed would be executed after permission from the Collector.
Prima facie, it appears to be the dispute regarding sale of immovable
property which could not conclude between the parties. The trial is under
way. The contentions advanced by the applicant have prima-facie merit and
cannot be dismissed as manifestly baseless. The veracity of prosecution and
complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence will be determined after
evidence in the trial.
8. As informed, the applicant has responsibility of dependent family
members. Considering these aspects, there appears to be no possibility of
fleeing from justice. In absence of substantial criminal past and previous
conviction for any major offence, considering the socio-economic status of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9191
5 MCRC-13064-2026
the applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of tampering with evidence
or influencing the witnesses by the applicant. As reported, the trial is delayed
due to vacancy of Judge in concerned Court. The trial would take time to
conclude. There appears to be no compelling reason to continue prolonged
incarceration of the applicant. However, the observations, herein-above, are
recorded for present application only.
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that applicant-Ramesh 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.75,000/-
(Rupees Seventy Five 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 as under):-
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9191
6 MCRC-13064-2026
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 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 ।
11. 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.
12. 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
pn
