Rajju @ Rajesh Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2026

Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34380




                                                                   1                         MCRC-19968-2026
                              IN      THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
                                                        ON THE 4 th OF MAY, 2026
                                                MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19968 of 2026
                                                        RAJJU @ RAJESH PATEL
                                                                Versus
                                                   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava, learned counsel for applicant.

                                   Shri A.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.

                                                                       ORDER

This first bail application has been filed by applicant under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.100/2018 registered at Police Station - Civil Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 205 of the IPC. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in the matter.

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, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case merely on the basis of information given by the co- accused while in police custody. Learned counsel further submits that the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34380

2 MCRC-19968-2026 applicant has not derived any benefit from the alleged transaction. He is ready to cooperate with the investigation, and his custodial interrogation is not required. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application on the ground of the gravity of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant has one criminal antecedent under Section 34(2) of the MP Excise Act.

6. Heard. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7 . As per the accusations in the case diary, Yogendra Paraste impersonated Ram Prasad, son of Punnu Singh Gaud, resident of Dhawai

Bamhni, Jabalpur, and appeared as a surety to facilitate the release of accused Akash Sonkar on bail. Satish Rajak identified Yogendra Paraste as Ram Prasad. Both Satish Rajak and Yogendra Paraste were apprehended. They stated that Rajju Patel (the applicant) had induced them to secure bail for Akash Sonkar by impersonating Ram Prasad, and that Rajju Patel was paid Rs. 3,000/- by Baba Sonkar, a relative of Akash Sonkar, for the same. Accordingly, Yogendra impersonated Ram Prasad and secured bail for Akash Sonkar. The forged Bhuadhikar and Rin Pustika documents in the name of Ram Prasad were produced before the trial court. On these allegations, Police Station Civil Lines, Jabalpur registered Crime No. 100/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 205 of the IPC. The applicant is apprehending arrest in the matter.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34380

3 MCRC-19968-2026

8. The material on record prima facie indicates the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. Custodial interrogation of the applicant appears necessary to uncover the conspiracy and his role in securing bail for Akash Sonkar by impersonation and forging documents. The matter involves forgery and fraud upon the criminal justice system. Apparently, the applicant has no regards for the Court process.

9 . In view of the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve the grant of the rare and exceptional relief of anticipatory bail.

10. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE