[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pratappuri Goswami vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:606
1 MCRC-56950-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 7 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56950 of 2025
PRATAPPURI GOSWAMI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vibhor Kumar Sahu - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar - PP for the State.
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant u/S. 483 of BNSS for
grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.331/2020 registered at Police
Station - Dehat District - Shivpuri (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC.
2. The brief story of the case is that 12 days before Diwali of 2020,
Sonu Rathore and Pankaj Sharma had promised the complainant Hridesh to
get a lease of five bighas of land in village Madakpur in his favour, for which
the cost would be ten lakh rupees. The complainant gave two lakh rupees to
Sonu and Pankaj in the presence of Tomar Singh and Ramvaran. Sonu
Rathore and Pankaj Sharma gave a photocopy of the land records of the said
land, in which the name of the complainant's father Charandas was written
on land survey number 80 located in village Madakpur. On 18.09.2020, the
applicant/accused was detention in the case of giving a fake lease. When he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:606
2 MCRC-56950-2025
sought information from Tehsil Shivpuri on the basis of the documents given
by accused Sonu, he found out that the land records were fake. Complainant
Hridayesh filed a written complaint about the incident at the PS Dehat on
September 26, 2020, based on which a case was registered against the
accused under Sections 420,467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code
under Crime No. 331/2020. During the investigation, accused Sonu Rathore
and Pankaj Sharma, along with applicant/accused Pratap Puri, the then
recordkeeper of Shivpuri, and Jitendra alias Jitu were also found to be
involved in the incident. The case diary was perused. The arguments of both
the parties were considered. An examination of the case reveals that the
allegation against the applicant/accused is that he is posted in the Records
Branch of the Collectorate, Shivpuri, and that Jitu Kaurav is reported to have
provided true copies of forged documents. It is also clear from the documents
submitted by the applicant/accused that the applicant/accused was also
arrested under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code
©in Crime No. 338/2020 and 340/2020 of the Bairad Police Station. In the
judgments related to crime numbers 338/2020 and 340/2020 dated
26.09.2025,23.09.2025 respectively, the accused Sonu, Satyam, Devendra
have been acquitted on the ground that they are not employees of the tehsil
and their access o the revenue records is not possible. In the said judgment,
the facts against the applicant/accused are that he used to provide Khasra
from the Collectorate District Records and used to enter fake files in the
Daaira Register on back date and used to prepare attested copies of fake
documents and without the presence of Pritam Babu Kailash,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:606
3 MCRC-56950-2025
Pratappuri(applicant/accused) and Jitu, employees of the Revenue Archives,
fake entries in the revenue records are forgery of revenue documents is not
possible. The applicant was instrumental in the forgery of the documents
many times, accordingly, the instant case has also been registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated. As alleged by the prosecution, he
was not posted at the relevant place during the course of the commission of
the alleged offence. There is no direct evidence against the present applicant
and he has been implicated only on the basis of the memorandum of the co-
accused persons. The co-accused persons have been enlarged on regular
bail. The applicant does not bear any criminal or tainted background.
Applicant is a permanent resident of District - Shivpuri (M.P.). and there is
no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence,
if released on bail. The applicant is also ready to abide by all the terms and
conditions as imposed by this Court and he is willing to cooperate in trial
and to make himself available as and when required for the purpose of
investigation/trial. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the
bail application and prayed for its rejection by submitting that the applicant
was actively involved in the aforesaid incident and there is sufficient material
available on record showing the active participation of the applicant.
8. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case
diary.
9. From perusal of the material available on record, this court finds
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:606
4 MCRC-56950-2025
that the complainant was duped by the co-accused persons in the name of
sale of land by preparing forged and fake documents. The present applicant
was also very much instrumental in the aforesaid offence. This Court is of
the considered opinion that tampering with revenue records by using the a
post of trust under the Government, is a heinous offence. The aforesaid
documents were used in commission of forgery and breach of trust with the
complainant. From the memorandum of the co-accused persons namely
Ghanshyam and Manoj, it is evident that the present applicant aided them to
prepare the forged and fake documents to use the same in commission of
fraud with the complainant. Even the present applicant certified the aforesaid
forged and fake documents of land records. The applicant also bears criminal
record of two other cases.
10. Hence, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and also the rival contentions advanced by the parties and looking to the
gravity of the offence and the act of the present applicant, this Court finds
that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail at this stage. Therefore,
in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
11. Accordingly, this application for anticipatory bail is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
