[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4600
1 MCRC-7278-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7278 of 2026
RAJESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Virendra Sharma, Senior Advocate( through VC) alongwith Shri
Jitendra Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Surendra Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
1. This first 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. 481 of 2025 registered at Police Station- Nagda,
District- Ujjain (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316 (2),
316(5) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 6, 19, 31, 36 of the Madhya
Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam. Applicant is in judicial custody
since 17/10/2025.
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 contends that it is a case of business transaction
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4600
2 MCRC-7278-2026
and purely civil in nature. The farmers have been selling crops to Krishna
traders for last two years. The proprietor of Krishna Traders allegedly failed
to pay them the amount of purchase of agricultural produce, therefore, they
jointly and severally made complaints alleging fraud and cheating against the
applicant and his associates. There was no intention to defraud at the
beginning of business transactions. Mere non-payment of price of goods
does not amount to commission of the offence of cheating or criminal breach
of trust. The alleged offences are not made out against the applicant. Learned
counsel refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi
Race Club (1940) limited and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 and the order dated 27/10/2025 passed in
MCRC no. 49157 of 2024 to buttress his contentions. Learned counsel also
submits that the applicant is implicated for assisting the main accused
Sourabh Modi. He is rather a victim as he had sold his produce to Krishna
Traders. The final report has been submitted on completion of investigation.
Applicant has clean past with family roots, property and employment. There
is no history of evading process of law. There is no likelihood of tampering
with evidence by the applicant. Considering the number of complainants, the
trial would take time to conclude. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the
applicant and the dependent family. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the
trial
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State contends that the
applicant is involved in purchase of agricultural produce with co accused
Saurabh without any licence mandated by the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4600
3 MCRC-7278-2026
Mandi Adhiniyam, which goes to show the intention of the applicant to
defraud the farmers from the inception, therefore, the offence punishable
under section 420 of the IPC is clearly made out. The applicant and his
associates purchased the agricultural produce from 81 farmers and fled away
without paying the amount of produce to the farmers, therefore, the offence
punishable under section 406 of the IPC is also made out against the
applicant. The applicant and his associates had defrauded the innocent
farmers to the tune of Rs. 5,86,77,870/-. Considering the gravity of the
offence, the applicant may not be extended the benefit of bail. However, after
going through the case diary, he fairly states that no criminal antecedent is
reported against the applicant. Applicant is aged 47 years. He is Govt.
Teacher by profession.
6. As per the accusation on case diary, Jeevan Singh Dodiya
submitted a written complaint to the S.H.O. of Police Station - Nagda, Ujjain
inter-alia stating that he and other farmers were induced by Sourabh Modi,
Rajesh (applicant) and Chhabbu @ Pukhraj to sell their agricultural produce
on promise of handsome profit. They sold their agricultural produce to
Sourabh Modi proprietor of Krishna traders. Sourabh issued the receipts
promising payment of the purchased produce. Saurabh Modi and his
associates Rajesh and Chhabbu @ Pukhraj did not pay the purchase money
and fled away. They have defrauded other farmers also. On such allegation,
the Police Station - Nagda registered FIR for offence punishable under
Sections 318(4), 316 (2), 316(5) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 against Sourabh
Modi, Rajesh and Chhabbu @ Pukhraj. In all, 81 farmers had submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4600
4 MCRC-7278-2026
written complaints against the applicant and his associates. Applicant was
arrested on 17/10/2025 and he is in custody ever since. The recoveries were
made at the instance of applicant and his associates. The final report has been
filed on completion of investigation.
7. Prima facie, it appears to be a continued business transaction
between the farmers and the purchaser of agricultural produce, wherein, the
purchaser failed to pay the money towards purchase of produce. The
Supreme Court in case of Delhi Race Club (1940) limited and others Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 has
observed as under :
"48. The aforesaid exposition of law makes it clear that there should be some entrustment of
property to the accused wherein the ownership is not transferred to the accused. In case of sale of
movable property, although the payment may be deferred yet the property in the goods passes on
delivery as per Sections 20 and 24 respectively of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
"20. Specific goods in a deliverable state. -- Where there is an unconditional contract for
the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state, the property in the goods passes to the
buyer when the contract is made and it is immaterial whether the time of payment of the
price or the time of delivery of goods, or both, is postponed.
xxx xxx xxx
24. Goods sent on approval or "on sale or return". -- When goods are delivered to the
buyer on approval or "on sale or return" or other similar terms, the property therein passes
to the buyer--
(a) when he signifies his approval or acceptance to the seller or does any other act
adopting the transaction;
(b) if he does not signify his approval or acceptance to the seller but retains the
goods without giving notice of rejection, then, if a time has been fixed for the
return of the goods on the expiration of such time, and, if no time has been fixed,
on the expiration of a reasonable time."
49. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods,
the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the
property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted
with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal
breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay
the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy
for the non-payment of the consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it.
[See : Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another : 2024 SCC OnLine SC
171 & Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) and Others v. State of Jharkhand and
Another : 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 301]
8. The contentions advanced by the applicant have prima-facie merit
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4600
5 MCRC-7278-2026
and cannot be dismissed as manifestly baseless. The veracity of the
prosecution and complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence will be
considered after evidence in trial. Further discussion on merits of accusation
may adversely affect the trial.
10. As informed, the applicant is aged around 47 years. He is a Govt.
Teacher by profession and has family responsibilities of aged parents.
Considering these 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
recidivism or tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses by the
applicant. There appears to be no compelling reason to continue
incarceration of the applicant. However, the observations, herein-above, are
recorded for present application only.
11. 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.
12. Accordingly, it is directed that applicant- Rajesh 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. 1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lac 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):-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4600
6 MCRC-7278-2026
(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 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 ।
13. 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.
14. 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/she had
explained the conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
amol
