logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MPHC 257 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench at Indore)
Case No : MISC. Criminal Case No. 36285 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
Parties : Mukesh Kewat Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: Harshwardhan Singh Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondent: Rahul Solanki, Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Advocate General.
Date of Judgment : 10-08-2026
Head Note :-
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 MPHC-IND 22224,
Judgment :-

1. Heard with the aid of case diary / challan papers.

This is applicant' first application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 = Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.151 of 2026 registered at Police Station Maheshwar, District Khargone (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 318 (3), 318 (4) and 329 (3) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023.

2. As per the prosecution case, the allegations are that Balram entered into an agreement with the complainant for sale of 0.083 hectare of agriculture land of Survey No.381/1 situated at Patwari Halka No.23 of Tehsil Maheshwar District Khargone for consideration of Rs.84,00,000/-. Mukesh Kewat received an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- and Balram and Ashish have received an amount of Rs.30,21,000/-. The agreement was executed on 17.12.2019. The sale deed of 3400 sq.ft. have been executed on 24.10.2024, but sale deed of rest of the land has not been executed. Ashish got rest of the land through gift from Balram and Sajanbai. Hence, the case has been registered against the applicant.

3. As per the applicant, on 11.01.2026, the complainant, Sapna Rathore, submitted an application before Police Station, Maheshwar stating that she had entered into an agreement to sale with present Applicant Mukesh Kewat in relation to land situated at Survey No. 381 (Area 0.43Acre) at Maheshwar in District Khargone (MP). However, the agreement to sell was not executed due to mutation by succession, the names of Balram, Sunil and Savitri were entered in the revenue records. Thereafter, when the time came for execution of the sale-deed of Balram's share of land, Mukesh and Balram refused to execute the registry, while Sunil and Savitri executed the sale deed of their share in favor of the complainant. Subsequently, the present applicant's nephew Aashish and his associates came to the complainant's plot, tried to interfere in possession and did wire fencing by force. It was further alleged that Mukesh, Balram, and Ashish cheated the complainant and that the land was transferred to Ashish through a gift deed and got the mutation done. The mutation proceedings were challenged before the S.D.O. (Revenue) in which the complainant lost the case. Subsequently, based on the allegations an FIR under Sections 318 (3), (4) and 329 (1) of the BNS was registered against the accused persons. Although, all the offences are punishable with maximum seven years imprisonment, however the present applicant has an apprehension of arrest. Hence this first anticipatory bail application is presented on the behalf of the applicant. The veracity of prosecution and intention of the applicant / accused person in the alleged offence will be determined after evidence in the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant is having no criminal record. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and is being given colour of criminal one. In support, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments delivered by the Apex Court in case of Radheshyam and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, SLP 13675 of 2023 , Rikhab Birani and another v. State of UP and another, SLP No.8592 of 2024 and Sarabject Kaur v. State of Punjab and another [2023 Live Law (SC) 157 ]. The complainant has civil remedy available under the law to file a suit for specific performance of contract. Learned counsel further submitted that on similar set of circumstances, co- accused person Aashish Kewat has been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 15.06.2026 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.24373 of 2026; and co-accused Balram Kewat has also been extended benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2026 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.31288 of 2026. The applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation and hence, prays for anticipatory bail.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent - State has opposed the application.

Heard. Perused the record.

6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that the co-accused persons have already been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court and there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant as well as the applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow this bail application.

7. Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) and furnishing one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).

8. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Certified copy as per rules.
 
  CDJLawJournal