The court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation in serious allegations, denying anticipatory bail based on insufficient grounds for release.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL st ON THE 1 OF AUGUST, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31301 of 2025 RITESH GOUR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Manish Dutt- Senior Advocate with Shri Nishank Pal Varma, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Satya Pal Chadar- G.A. for the respondent/State.

Shri Ashish Sinha - Advocate for the objector.

ORDER This first application under Section 482 of The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Applicant apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 320/2022 of Police Station-Kotwali, District-Narmadapuram (MP) for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 423, 467, 465, 471 and 120-B has knocked the portal of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that applicant assisted one Om Prakash in opening an account in Maharashtra Bank at the behest of Shushil.

4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case, earlier agreement to sale was executed between Dera Sacha Sauda and Santosh. When sale deed was not executed in pursuance of aforesaid agreement to sale, then, civil suit for specific performance of contract was filed by Santosh and thereafter civil suit was decreed and by virtue of decree, sale deed was executed Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH in favour of Santosh. Later on, complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of Dera Sacha Sauda and FIR got registered on the ground that Dera Sacha Sauda did not execute any agreement to sale in favour of Santosh and some fictitious person has executed alleged agreement to sale in favour of Santosh. It is also urged that in the instant case, main accused is Advocate Sushil Goyal. It is also urged that applicant was working for Santosh. Only allegation against the applicant is that he assisted Om Prakash in opening an account in Maharashtra Bank at the behest of Shushil. No forgery has been committed by the applicant. In the instant case, charge sheet has been filed. Applicant's statement has been recorded by the police during investigation. Victim Santosh did not allege anything against present applicant. It is also urged that no offence under Section 423, 467, 465, 471 and 120-B is made out against present applicant. It is also urged that co-accused, namely Krishan Kumar, Sharad Shisodiya, Santosh Jain have been released on anticipatory bail vide order dated 14.07.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 33726/2022. Applicant is ready to abide by all the conditions whatsoever imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned counsel for the objector, after referring to impugned order passed by the trial court, submits that it is present applicant who assisted fictitious Om Prakash Baretha is getting mobile sim as well as getting bank account opened in Maharashtra Bank. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the anticipatory bail application.

7. Having regard to allegations levelled against applicant and prosecution case as mentioned in the FIR and also having regard to the fact that custodial interrogation would be required, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH

8. Therefore, this first bail application under Section 482 of of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, on behalf of applicant-Ritesh Gour stands dismissed.