[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayan Shrivas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8040
1 MCRC-1775-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1775 of 2026
NARAYAN SHRIVAS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ghan Shyam Pandey - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Kamal Singh Baghel - Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Ravi Shankar Yadav and Shri Adwitya Parashar - Advocates for
the objector.
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.23/2025
registered at Police Station Gwarighat, District - Jabalpur (M.P.) for
commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 416 and Section
120-B of the IPC. Applicant apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid
offence, has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. As per the allegations, the applicant is an attesting witness and is
involved in forged transaction of lands.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due
to old enmity and personal grudges. It is further submitted that the present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8040
2 MCRC-1775-2026
applicant is aged about 79 years. As per allegation, he has only singed the
alleged documents as attesting witness of purchaser. He has neither received
any monetary gain nor he has played any role in commission of any offence.
He has further contended that parents of the present victim are also accused
and they have been enlarged on bail by the Apex Court. It is put forth that
considering the old age of the present applicant, no fruitful purpose will be
served by taking the present applicant into custody. Even assuming the
contents of the FIR to be true then also offences are bailable in nature and on
that count also the present applicant is required to be considered for grant of
anticipatory bail. Therefore, it is prayed that applicant may be released on
anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
application and submits that the bail application of seller in the present case
Ramakant Satnami has also been dismissed. The present applicant has also
played active role along with Ramakant Satnami in commission of crime
and, therefore, considering the material available on record, no case for grant
of anticipatory bail is made out.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that in
the present case, the role of the applicant is important as transactions which
have been taken placed by so called seller who is in fact not the actual owner
of the lands which were sold. There are several forged transactions in which
the present applicant acted as a attesting witness to the present owner who
was not actually owing the lands but executed the documents. Therefore, the
present applicant has also played active and important role in commission of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8040
3 MCRC-1775-2026
such crime.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. There are
several transactions where the present applicant has played role of attesting
witness where forged transactions were executed more particularly prima
facie it is found that such document is not executed by the original seller but
by someone else i.e. present seller whose bail application is already rejected.
This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail. It is also relevant to
mention that the petitioner was earlier arrested for commission of similar
offence and thereafter was released on bail. Considering all these aspects,
this Court is of the opinion that prima facie material is available on record
which requires further investigation in the matter and, therefore, the applicant
should not be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. is dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
ks
