[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5273
1 MCRC-1042-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 20th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1042 of 2026
SUNIL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Aman Mourya - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Gajendra Singh Dodia - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
1. Heard on I.A. No.1517/2026, an application for taking additional
documents on record.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and
closed.
3. This second application has been filed by the applicant under
Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime
No.156/2022, registered at Police Station - Shujalpur Mandi, District
Shajapur (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC.
Applicant is in judicial custody since 27.8.2025. His first bail application
was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.12.2025 passed in MCRC
No.42233/2025.
3. Heard the arguments.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5273
2 MCRC-1042-2026
4. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case
diary and the relevant material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the application submits that the applicant is falsely implicated
in this matter. In fact, the transaction was undertaken by the petitioner along
with his partners Govind Meena and Jagdish Pushpad. The amount was
received by his partners. The final report has been submitted. Trial would
take time to conclude. Applicant be extended benefit of bail.
6 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the case
involves fraudulent misrepresentation, cheating and criminal breach of trust
with 12 complainants. The alleged offence is prima facie made out against
the applicant. The earlier bail application was dismissed with liberty to renew
prayer after evidence of complainant before the trial Court. None of the
complainants has been examined till date. There are three criminal
antecedents against the applicant. The applicant does not deserve to be
released on bail.
7. As per the accusation on case diary, the applicant fraudulently
induced complainant Sangeeta Pushpad, Savitri Bai, Aasha Bai, Ramkala
Bai, Pankaj Sharma, Ajay Kumar Bairagi and Shanta Bai on promise to sell
them plot at Jata Shankar Dham Colony, Akodia. Applicant executed
agreement to sale of the plot in their favour and received money in cash,
installments and through online transfer. Later it was revealed that the land
does not belong to applicant, rather the land is of ownership of Rajendra
Agrawal, Manas Rathore and Pradeep Mangal. Applicant Sunil Jatav closed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5273
3 MCRC-1042-2026
his office and fled away. On such allegation, the Police Station - Shujalpur
Mandi registered FIR for offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B
of IPC against the applicant Sunil and his associates Alok and Vinod on
7.3.2022. Applicant could be arrested on 27.8.2025. He is in custody ever
since. Final report has been submitted on completion of investigation.
8. The material on record shows that the applicant had intention to
defraud and cheat from inception for the reason that the land promised to be
sold to the complainant does not belong to him. Applicant has received the
money from the complainants on false promise of execution of sale deed of
the plots and fled away with their money. The alleged offence is prima facie
made out against the applicant. The applicant remained absconding for
almost three years. The likelihood of fleeing from justice in such a scenario
cannot be ruled out. The grant of bail to applicant in view of the specific
allegations would have larger ramifications.
9. Considering these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.
Consequently, the application is dismissed.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
trilok
