[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saifu @ Adil Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8943
1 MCRC-56204-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56204 of 2025
SAIFU @ ADIL KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate with Shri Nawab Khan -
Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Ashish Tiwari - Advocate for the complainant/objector.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of
BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.851/2025
registered at Police Station Hanumantal, District - Jabalpur (M.P.) for
commission of offences under Sections 296(a), 308(5), 332(c), 324(4) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.| Applicant apprehending his arrest in the
aforesaid offence, has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. As per prosecution, an FIR was lodged on 21.11.2025, wherein it
is alleged by the complainant that on 21.11.2025, the complainant was at his
welding shop, then, at around 9:30 AM, Adil, alias Saifu, came with a stick
in his hand and started abusing him and demanding Rs. 50,000/- or leave the
house and plot. Thereafter, when the complainant refused to abuse him and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8943
2 MCRC-56204-2025
asked him why he should pay the money, he entered into the shop of the
complainant, vandalized it, and knocked down the wall, causing significant
damage. He chopped down the trees and plants with an axe and threatened to
kill him if he did not pay him the money or leave the house and plot. Hearing
his screams, Mohd. Javed Akhtar, and his friend, Naseem Ahmed, came and
Adil @ Saifu, left. The offences as aforementioned have been registered
against the applicant.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that except for the
offence mentioned in the FIR registered under Section 308(5) of the BNS,
the other offences registered under the remaining sections are bailable. He
has further submitted that, in view of the material available on record, it
cannot be said that there is any possession over the property in question.
Placing reliance on the judgments rendered in the case of Isaac Isanga
Musunba and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2014) 15 SCC
357] and Salib alias Shalu alias Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
[(2023) 20 SCC 194], he submits that the essential ingredients of extortion
are also not satisfied in the facts of the present case. By referring to the
proceedings initiated before the SDM, it is further submitted that the present
FIR has been lodged in view of a pre-existing dispute between the parties.
Therefore, it is contended that the ingredients of Sections 308(4) and 308(5)
of the BNS are not made out in the facts of the present case. Therefore, it is
prayed that applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, counsel for the State as well as counsel for the objector
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8943
3 MCRC-56204-2025
have strongly opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the
applicant. They have submitted that pursuant to the registration of the FIR,
the SDM has found that there was an encroachment. It is further submitted
that there are seven criminal cases registered against the present applicant,
one of which is under Section 302 of the IPC. It is contended that, in the
settled position of law, where there is chances of repetition of offences by
such a hardened criminal, discretion should not be exercised in favour of the
applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the State has also produced the case diary for
the perusal of the Court. As indicated from the local Panchnama and the
statements of the persons present at the time of the incident, it is found that
the present applicant acted in a high-handed manner, removed the wall by
calling a JCB, and also damaged certain trees with the help of an axe. It is a
settled position of law that while considering an application for anticipatory
bail, the Court is required to examine, prima facie, whether the applicant has
been wrongly implicated, whether the offences alleged in the FIR are prima
facie made out or not, and whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is
necessary.
7. Considering the material available on record and the settled position
of law, more particularly, the judgment of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.
State of Maharashtra and Others [(2011) 1 SCC 694] and other relevant
judgments wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasizes that anticipatory bail
is intended to protect personal liberty where there are reasonable grounds to
believe that accused will neither abscond nor misuse the concession of bail,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8943
4 MCRC-56204-2025
and also taking into account the criminal antecedents of the applicant, prima
facie the offence is made out against the applicant. I am of the view that I
should not exercise my discretion by exercising my power under Section 482
of BNSS and also considering the societal impact, no case for grant of
anticipatory bail is made out.
8 . Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. is dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
b
