IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

th

ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39098 of 2025 AJAY PATEL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri B.D. Singh - Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

None for respondent No.2, though served.

ORDER This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 483(3) of the BNSS for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 by trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.08.2025 (Annexure C/1) in connection with FIR/Crime No.374/2024 registered at Police Station Omti, District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471,384, 386, 506, 506 r/w 120-B, 34 of I.P.C.

2. As per prosecution story, an F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant/applicant wherein it has been stated that he is engaged in construction and contractual work. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that in the month of July 2023, one Jameel, the brother-in-law of Mehmood (who is the brother of Abdul Razzak), approached the complainant and informed him that a plot of land admeasuring 2,587 sq. ft. at Amkhera, belonging to Razzak, was available for sale and could also be taken under a builder ship plan whereafter, Jameel offered to arrange a meeting with the concerned family. Thereafter, in the month of September 2023, Jameel took the complainant to the residence of Mohammad Riyaz (brother of Abdul Razzak). At this meeting, Riyaz, his son/ Respondent no. 2 i.e. Azhar, his wife Shamima, and his daughter Nasreen Nikhat were present and furthermore, one Brajesh Mishra had also accompanied the complainant. It was decided that the complainant would meet Abdul Razzak personally, which eventually took place on 17 July, 2023 during a court visit wherein the Respondent no.2 i.e. Azhar introduced the complainant to Abdul Razzak, who initially demanded Rs.1,25,00,000/- for the property. On request of the complainant, the price was settled at Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Thereafter, he made several payments to the accused persons. Following these payments, an agreement was executed between the complainant and Nasreen Nikhat. Despite repeated assurances, the accused persons allegedly started avoiding execution of the registered sale deed. On 24 May 2024, the complainant was again taken by respondent no.2. i.e. Azhar to the court premises where Razzak is said to have refused to complete the registry. In total, the applicant has paid a huge sum of Rs. 95,00,000/- to the accused persons. Despite receiving the substantial consideration, the accused have refused to execute the sale deed. Instead, they have extended threats to the complainant. The complainant/applicant has made payments amounting to nearly Rs.95,00,000/, yet the accused persons have neither executed the sale deed nor returned the money, and have instead resorted to threats and intimidation. Therefore, the complaint has been lodged by the applicant. The respondent No.2/accused as well as other co-accused persons had harass and torment the applicant and given threat to compromise the case registered by him at P.S. Omti, District-Jabalpur. The investigation in respect of respondent no.2 is still going on and the charge-sheet has also not been filed but the said fact has been overlooked by the learned Court below and has granted bail to the respondent no.2. Hence, this application for cancellation of bail has been filed by the applicant.

3. Heard Mr. Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B.D. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent No.1/State. Though, notice was served to the original accused/respondent No.2 and earlier the Court has granted time by order dated 5.12.2025 and 23.01.2026 and from the report available on record, it transpires that the notice is already delivered on 27.09.2025 to respondent No.2, but he has not filed any appearance nor engaged any counsel. The