Manoj Singh Somvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52395
1 MCRC-25715-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA

PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI
th
ON THE 13 OF JULY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25715 of 2026
MANOJ SINGH SOMVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Gupta - Senior Advocate with Shri Pradeep Kumar
Dwivedi - counsel for the applicant
Shri Amit Pandey - Government Advocate for the respondent -
State
Shri Aayush Sharma - counsel for the objector
ORDER
This is first application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by applicant for grant of regular bail
relating to Crime No.193/2026 registered at Police Station Bagsewania
District Bhopal for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4),
316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 296(b), 351(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023.
2. As per prosecution case FIR has been lodged on the
complaint of one Rahul Dev Gautam, resident of Flat No. 101, Jyoti
Heights, Kolar Road, Bhopal. According to the complainant, he
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:14:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52395
2 MCRC-25715-2026
intended to purchase a residential flat at Bhopal. Co-accused Prashant

Maneshwar, who was acquainted with the complainant, introduced him
to co-accused Manoj Agrawal, who represented himself to be the owner
and builder of the project "Jyoti Heights" situated at Kolar Road,
Bhopal. Manoj Agrawal and Prashant Maneshwar showed the
complainant Flat No. 105, Jyoti Heights, and the transaction was
finalized at the office of Manoj Agrawal situated at Vidya Nagar,
Bhopal, for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-. It is pertinent to
note that the complainant himself resides in Flat No. 101 of the same
building, which is situated on the same floor and directly opposite Flat
No. 105. As per the complainant's own allegations contained in the FIR,
he paid Rs.1,15,000/- to co-accused Prashant Maneshwar through
different modes commencing from 03.04.2025, and further issued a
cheque of Rs.8,50,000/- in favour of Manoj Agrawal. The said cheque
was deposited by Manoj Agrawal into the bank account of Shri Rakesh
Kumar Datta, father of co-accused Ankur Kumar Datta.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR does not allege
that any portion of the sale consideration was ever paid to the present
applicant, Manoj Singh Somvanshi. The Applicant's company, M/s Ira
Heights Pvt. Ltd., had earlier transferred all rights in respect of the
"Jyoti Heights" project to the proprietors of M/s Hakeem Sales
Corporation, who were authorized to market and sell the flats through
co-accused Manoj Agrawal. For the purpose of facilitating such
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:14:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52395
3 MCRC-25715-2026
transactions, the Applicant had executed a Power of Attorney in favour

of Mohd. Sohail Qureshi, an employee of M/s Hakeem Sales
Corporation. Subsequently, the proprietor of M/s Hakeem Sales
Corporation informed the Applicant that the earlier Power of Attorney
executed in favour of Mohd. Sohail Qureshi had expired and requested
the Applicant to personally execute the sale deed of Flat No. 105 in
favour of the purchaser. The Applicant was also requested to execute a
fresh Power of Attorney in favour of the said employee with respect to
the remaining unsold flats. Acting in good faith and relying upon the
representations made by the proprietor of M/s Hakeem Sales
Corporation, the Applicant agreed to execute the sale deed and the fresh
Power of Attorney without independently verifying whether Flat No.
105 had already been sold. Accordingly, the Applicant executed and got
registered the sale deed of Flat No.105 in favour of the complainant on
11.07.2025. Prior to the execution of the said sale deed, the Applicant
had never met the complainant personally. Even the FIR records that
Manoj Agrawal had represented that M/s Hakeem Sales Corporation
was the custodian and authorized entity dealing with the property. It was
only after his arrest on 21.05.2026 the Applicant came to know that Flat
No. 105 had allegedly been sold earlier in the year 2021 to one Jitendra
Singh through a sale deed executed by Mohd. Sohail Qureshi in his
capacity as Power of Attorney holder, and not by the Applicant
personally. The Applicant had no prior knowledge of the existence of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:14:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52395
4 MCRC-25715-2026
the earlier sale transaction. The Applicant submits that, being unaware

of the previous sale of Flat No. 105, he was induced into executing the
subsequent sale deed by the representatives of M/s Hakeem Sales
Corporation. According to the Applicant, he is himself a victim of the
acts of the said Corporation and not a participant in any alleged
conspiracy. The Applicant has neither received nor retained any part of
the alleged sale consideration received from the complainant. The
complainant himself was a resident of the same building and occupied
Flat No. 101 situated directly opposite Flat No. 105. According to the
Applicant, the complainant, being a resident of the building, was in a
position to ascertain the factual status of the property before entering
into the transaction. The Applicant submits that the present complaint
has been lodged only after disputes arose with respect to the transaction.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has committed no
offence and has been arraigned as an accused without any material
establishing his criminal intent or active participation in the alleged
offence. The FIR does not attribute any substantive role to the Applicant
except that he executed the registered sale deed dated 11.07.2025 in his
capacity as Director of M/s Ira Heights Private Limited. The FIR does
not allege that the Applicant negotiated the transaction, induced the
complainant to purchase the flat, represented himself to be the owner, or
received any part of the sale consideration. According to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:14:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52395
5 MCRC-25715-2026
complainant's own version, the sale consideration was paid to co-

accused Prashant Maneshwar and Manoj Agrawal. The FIR and the
material collected during investigation do not disclose that any portion
of the consideration was ever received by the Applicant. There is no
documentary evidence to show that the Applicant derived any financial
benefit from the alleged transaction. The Applicant executed the sale
deed in his own name and in his capacity as Director of M/s Ira Heights
Private Limited. He neither impersonated any person nor falsely
represented himself to possess any authority which he did not have.
Consequently, the essential ingredient of making a "false document,"
which is the foundation of the offence of forgery, is absent. The
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim &
Others v. State of Bihar & Another, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751,
clearly demonstrate that the present case does not fall within any of the
recognised categories constituting forgery. Once the allegation of
forgery is excluded, the remaining allegations, if accepted at their
highest, disclose at best an offence of cheating, punishable with
imprisonment up to seven years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, has emphasized
that arrest and continued incarceration should not be resorted to
mechanically in offences carrying punishment up to seven years.
Similar principles have also been reiterated by this Hon'ble Court in
Zarina Begum v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2021 SCC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:14:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52395
6 MCRC-25715-2026
OnLine MP 961. The earlier sale deed of Flat No. 105 in favour of

Jitendra Singh in the year 2021 was executed by Mohd. Sohail Qureshi
in his capacity as the Applicant's Power of Attorney holder. The
Applicant had no knowledge that the said flat had already been sold.
The Applicant cannot be held criminally liable for acts allegedly
committed by the attorney holder without his knowledge, consent or
participation. The Applicant himself has been misled by the
representatives of M/s Hakeem Sales Corporation. Acting upon their
representations that the earlier Power of Attorney had expired and that
the sale deed was required to be executed directly by him, the Applicant
executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant. The material on
record does not disclose any dishonest intention or fraudulent design on
the part of the Applicant at the time of execution of the sale deed. The
complainant is a resident of Flat No. 101 in the same building and
resides directly opposite Flat No. 105. The Applicant submits that the
complainant was in a position to verify the factual status and possession
of the property before entering into the transaction. These are matters
requiring appreciation during trial and cannot, by themselves, justify
continued incarceration of the Applicant. The investigation has been
completed and the Applicant has been interrogated, the necessary
documentary evidence has already been collected, and no further
recovery is required from him. The prosecution case is primarily based
on documentary evidence already in its possession. There is no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:14:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52395
7 MCRC-25715-2026
reasonable apprehension that the Applicant, if enlarged on bail, would

tamper with the evidence, influence witnesses, or obstruct the course of
justice. The documentary nature of the evidence substantially minimizes
any such possibility. The Applicant is presently in judicial custody.
Since the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has
been filed, no useful purpose would be served by his continued
detention during the pendency of the trial, which is likely to take
considerable time to conclude.
5. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicant that the only
document issued by the arresting authority is an intimation of arrest
dated 21.05.2026 under Section 48(1) of the BNSS, addressed to the
applicant's wife, Smt. Jyoti Somvanshi. The said intimation merely
recites the crime number and the sections of the BNS alleged to be
attracted and records that information regarding the arrest was conveyed
over the telephone. It does not contain or disclose the grounds of arrest.
The said document is only an intimation to a relative under Section 48
of the BNSS and is not, and cannot be, a substitute for the grounds of
arrest required to be communicated to the arrested person himself under
Section 47 of the BNSS. No memo or written document setting out the
grounds of arrest was ever supplied to the applicant. No such grounds
were furnished in a language understood by the applicant. Further, no
such grounds were supplied at least two hours prior to his production
before the learned Magistrate for remand. The present matter is based
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:14:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52395
8 MCRC-25715-2026
primarily on documentary evidence, and the alleged offences relate to

cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery. There were no exigent
circumstances and no allegation of any offence having been committed
in the presence of the police authorities. In such circumstances, the
written grounds of arrest were required to be furnished to the applicant
at the time of his arrest. The complete absence of such grounds amounts
to a clear violation of the statutory and constitutional mandate. That the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra,
(2026) 1 SCC 500, has held that informing an arrested person of the
grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional safeguard under Article
22(1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same
applies to every offence, including offences registered under the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It has been held that the grounds of arrest
must be communicated in writing and in a language understood by the
arrestee, and failure to do so renders the arrest and consequential remand
illegal, thereby entitling the arrested person to be released in accordance
with law. It has further been held that subsequent filing of a charge-
sheet does not cure an arrest which was unconstitutional at its
inception. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Rajinder Rajan v.
Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 802, while following the
principles laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), considered an arrest
memo prepared in a template format which merely recorded that the
grounds of arrest had been explained to the accused. The Hon'ble
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:14:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52395
9 MCRC-25715-2026
Supreme Court held that such a recital cannot be treated as a substitute

for furnishing written grounds of arrest within the prescribed time, and
failure to comply with the said requirement rendered the arrest illegal
and entitled the accused to appropriate relief. This Hon'ble Court, in
Aditya Dwivedi alias Amit Dwivedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(M.Cr.C. No. 13904 of 2026, decided on 27.04.2026), while applying
the principles laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and Dr. Rajinder
Rajan (supra), held that a template-form arrest memo, which was bereft
of specific grounds of arrest, did not satisfy the constitutional mandate.
On such basis, the accused was granted bail. The case of the present
applicant stands on the same footing and, in fact, on a stronger footing,
as the document relied upon by the prosecution is not even an arrest
memo but merely an intimation addressed to a relative, wherein there is
not even a recital that the grounds of arrest were orally communicated to
the applicant.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the objector as well
as State vehemently oppose the bail application and submits that the
allegations levelled against the applicant are serious in nature and the
material available on record prima facie discloses the involvement of the
applicant in the commission of the alleged offences. It is submitted that
the applicant, along with other accused persons, has committed offences
punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 296(b),
351(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegations
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:14:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52395
10 MCRC-25715-2026
involve cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, criminal

conspiracy, and criminal intimidation, which have caused financial and
mental loss to the objector. It is further submitted that the investigation
is still at a crucial stage and various aspects of the offence, including the
role of the applicant, the manner in which forged documents were
prepared/used, and the involvement of other accused persons, are
required to be thoroughly investigated. Learned counsel further submits
that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, there is a possibility that he may
influence the complainant/objector or other witnesses and may also
obstruct the course of investigation and trial. It is submitted that the
seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences, the manner of
commission, and the prima facie material available against the applicant
are relevant considerations while deciding the bail application. The
applicant cannot claim bail merely on the ground that he is in custody or
that the investigation is based upon documentary evidence. It is further
submitted that the defence raised by the applicant involves disputed
questions of fact, which cannot be examined in detail at the stage of bail
and can only be considered during trial after appreciation of evidence.
Therefore, considering the nature of allegations, gravity of offences, and
the possibility of misuse of liberty, it is prayed that the bail application
filed by the applicant be rejected.
7. I have heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the
case diary.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:14:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52395
11 MCRC-25715-2026
8. Upon perusal of the case diary and the documents contained

therein, it is revealed that Flat No. 105 situated at Jyoti Heights was
shown to have been sold by M.S. Ira Heights Private Limited, through
its Director Manoj Kumar Singh, by executing a registered sale deed
dated 06.03.2021 in favour of the purchaser Jitendra Singh through an
authorised Power of Attorney holder Mohd. Sohail Qureshi, the said
Power of Attorney having been registered on 01.01.2021. Similarly, Flat
No. 101 was sold by Mohd. Sohail Qureshi on 05.09.2024 in favour of
Rahul Singh Dalodiya, and thereafter, the said flat was again sold by the
applicant to the purchaser Ashwin Panchal through a registered sale
deed dated 11.07.2025. Thus, it appears that even after the applicant had
previously sold the flats, the same flats were subsequently sold to other
persons either by the applicant himself or through an authorised power
of attorney holder. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the grounds of
arrest were not disclosed to the applicant and placed reliance upon
various judgments in support of his contention. However, the judgments
relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner do not come to the aid
of the applicant at this stage, as the requirement of communicating the
grounds of arrest depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case,
and in certain situations, such disclosure may not be required in the
manner claimed by the applicant. The same are as follows:
(1) When the accused is absconding after the commission of the
offence, arrest may be necessary to secure his presence during the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:14:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52395
12 MCRC-25715-2026
investigation and subsequent legal proceedings.

(2) When the accused or their family members approach higher
authorities seeking a fresh investigation or reinvestigation, arrest may be
warranted if justified by the facts and circumstances of the case and in
accordance with law.
(3) When the accused caught red-handed while committing the
offence, arrest is justified based on the immediate circumstances of the
offence.
(4) In cases involving financial offences, misappropriation,
fraud, or offences involving Members of Parliament (MPs) or Members
of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs), arrest may be necessary where there
is credible prior evidence that the accused has tampered with,
manipulated, or destroyed documentary or electronic evidence,
influenced or attempted to influence witnesses, or otherwise obstructed
or is likely to obstruct the course of the investigation.
(5) If there are serious allegations involving the commission of
heinous offences punishable under the provisions of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which relate to grave
offences against a child and are of an exceptionally serious nature
carrying severe penal consequences under the law.
9. In these circumstances, considering the seriousness of the
offence and the prima facie involvement of the applicant in the alleged
crime, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:14:40

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52395
13 MCRC-25715-2026
stage.

10. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the
applicant stands dismissed.
(AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE
S /-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
12:14:40