Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omprakash Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 May, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25279
1 CRA-3380-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 26th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3380 of 2025
SANJEEV SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Shankar Yadav - Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3379 of 2025
OMPRAKASH TRIPATHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Shankar Yadav - Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3748 of 2025
GANGA PATHAK AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate with Shri Mayank Sharma -
Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 16-06-2025
10:07:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25279
2 CRA-3380-2025
Shri Shailendra Verma - Advocate for objector.
ORDER
Since all these appeals are arising out of similar crime number and
since their applications for anticipatory bail applications have been rejected
by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Jabalpur, they are being heard analogously and
are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the
facts stated in Cr.A.No.3748 of 2025 are taken note of.
2. These criminal appeals have been filed under Section 14A(1) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 against the orders passed by the Special Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.)
whereby the appellants’ applications for grant of anticipatory bail relating to
Crime No.120 of 2025 registered at Police Station Bargi District Jabalpur for
the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been rejected.
3. It is argued that an FIR was lodged by Purnima Khandayat on
12.03.2025 with respect to an incident said to have been taken place during
intervening period from 19.03.2020 to 10.07.2023 pointing out the fact that
the appellants along with other co-accused persons have forged and
fabricated certain documents, on the basis of which, they have tried to grab
the property belonging to person of SC/ST community in their favour
without permission of the competent authority. It is argued that the
appellants have purchased the land by affecting the sale-deeds. At the time of
registration of sale-deed, there was no objection with respect to land
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 16-06-2025
10:07:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25279
3 CRA-3380-2025
belonging to SC/ST community people. They have filed certain documents
to demonstrate that revenue entries are silent regarding the land belonging to
SC/ST community. For a period of two years after execution of the sale-
deed, there were no complaints. When the parties have applied for mutation,
it came to their knowledge that the land belonging to persons of reserved
category and, therefore, the appellant No.1 immediately filed an complaint to
the police station Gwarighat, Jabalpur pointing out the fact that the appellants
have been cheated by one Ramakant Satnami and Rajendra Puri as they have
sold the land belonging to SC/ST community persons without sanction or
approval from the competent authority. The FIR was registered at Crime
No.23 of 2025 under Sections 416, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code. They have also placed on record certain documents i.e. khasra
entries to show that none of the khasra entries demonstrate that the land in
question belongs to person of SC/ST community. It is argued that his FIR
against Ramakant Satnami and Rajendra Puri was prior in time to the current
FIR registered against the present appellants. The appellant No.1 has also
submitted applications to the Superintendent of Police Jabalpur on
09.08.2023 and 06.10.2024, however, no action has been taken on the said
applications. Another application dated 05.03.2025 was filed before the Sub
Divisional Officer, Station House Officer, Tilwara Jabalpur pointing out the
fact that the appellants have been cheated. It is argued that there was no
objection taken at any point of time despite of the fact that consideration
amount has been received by the owners of the property. Even the
registration authorities have not taken any objection while executing the sale-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 16-06-2025
10:07:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25279
4 CRA-3380-2025
deeds. They have not been implicated as an accused in the present case. The
applicants are reputed persons aged about 70 and 60 years respectively. The
appellant No.1 is working as an auditor in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper. The
appellants are ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be
imposed by this Court while considering the appeal for grant of anticipatory
bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the objector has
vehemently opposed the contentions contending therein that the appellants
are the blackmailer. No document is filed in support of the arguments to
show that the appellant No.1 is auditor of newspaper Dainik Bhaskar. The
appellant No.1 is a habitual offender. Seven incidents have been brought to
the notice of the police authorities regarding blackmailing being done by
them, which are reflected from documents Annexures A/1, A/2 and A/3 filed
along with objections. The appellant No.1 is habitual of grabbing the land
belonging to people of SC/ST community by playing fraud. It is argued that
legal notices have been issued to Mamta Pathak on 27.01.2022 with respect
to grabbing of land and playing fraud with M/s Advita Developers and
Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Their involvement in commission of offence is clearly
reflected. There is no document on record to show that the entire
consideration amount towards the sale-deeds has been paid by the appellants.
Learned counsel for the objector has brought to notice of this Court an order
passed by this Court in the case of Narayan Shrivas (Cr.A.No.3683 of 2025)
dated 09.05.2025 wherein appeal of the co-accused has been rejected by the
Court. He was also aged about 78 years. He has pointed out that as may as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 16-06-2025
10:07:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25279
5 CRA-3380-2025
27 sale-deeds have been executed by playing fraud, till date only 4-5 are
identified as the accused persons are still absconding in the matter and the
material documents are yet to be collected by the prosecution. They have not
cooperated with the investigating agency. When they came to know about
the fact that forgery has been pointed out to the police authorities, they
themselves filed the complaints just to safeguard themselves. He has prayed
for rejection of the appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the
contentions of the appellants’ counsel pointed out the fact that offence has
been registered against as many as 9 persons and only one person has been
arrested till date. It is argued that first sale-deed is dated 10.07.2023. Seller
of the property is Pradeep Chauhan and purchaser of the property is Mamta
Pathak. Ganga Pathak was one of the witness and amount of Rs.6.00 Lakhs
has been paid through cheque No.408770. It is argued that original seller
Pradeep Chauhan at the time of registry was not present in the country. He
was at abroad. In place of original land owner by impersonation by
presenting some other person, the document i.e. the sale-deed was got
executed. Witness Ganga Pathak has given his identification for the seller.
Therefore, it cannot be said that Ganga Pathak was not doing anything and he
was only a witness to the sale-deed. Second sale-deed was executed by
Chandra Singh @ Chander Singh Rajput, purchaser was Om Prakash
Tripathi, one of the co-accused; witnesses are Sanjeev Shrivastava and
Bharat Mehra. Seller of the property belongs to SC/ST community and no
permission was got from the competent authority prior to selling the land in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 16-06-2025
10:07:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25279
6 CRA-3380-2025
question. By making manipulation in the name of the seller, an impression
was created that the seller does not belong to SC/ST community. Third sale-
deed dated 20.03.2020. Seller is Sarju Verma, purchaser is Ganga Pathak and
witness is Narayan Shrivas. It is pointed out that Sarju had expired on
05.07.2014. Kinto bai had also expired prior to the registry. Therefore, again
by impersonation by presenting false persons, sale-deed was got executed.
Fourth sale-deed is dated 13.06.2023. The seller is Kallu bai Yadav,
purchaser is again Mamta Pathak, witnesses are Narayan Prasad Shrivas and
Deepak Kumar Sahu. The original owner Kallu Bai who belongs to SC/ST
community had passed away prior to the registry. Therefore, again by
impersonation by presenting some other person in place of Kallu Bai, the
sale-deed was got executed. Fifth sale-deed dated 19.03.2020 was executed
by Kadhori Dheemer, purchaser is Ganga Pathak, witness is Narayan Prasad
Shrivas and Ramkumar Manjhi. Original owner was shown to be Kadhori
son of Nanhelal.Actual status of Kadhori was not reflected or presented
before the registering authority that he belong to ST community. Under these
circumstances, again a fraud has been played. It is further contended that
modus operandi of all these accused persons is that they identified by
surnames of persons belonging to SC/ST community. They selected such
documents by which it cannot be demonstrate that land belongs to persons of
SC/ST community so that very purpose of provision of Section 165 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code can be bye-passed. Forged and
fabricated Bhoo Adhikars and Rin Pustikas were prepared, they were
downloaded, forged photographs were affixed, seal stamping including
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 16-06-2025
10:07:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25279
7 CRA-3380-2025
signatures were made forged on the documents. Forges adharcards were
prepared. During verification, it was found that the forged adharcards were
prepared by affixing the photographs of some other persons. Under these
circumstances, the sale-deeds were executed by playing fraud. Therefore, no
case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. He has prayed for rejection of
the appeals.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as
the fact that in all such sale-deeds which have been executed, the names of
the present appellants and other co-accused are clearly reflected, coupled
with the fact that learned counsel appearing for the State as well as objector
have pointed out their modus operandi as well as the manner in which they
have got the sale-deeds executed, this Court does not deem it appropriate to
enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, these all appeals stand dismissed.
8. The appellants are directed to surrender and apply for regular bail.
sj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 16-06-2025
10:07:01