Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jugraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 August, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35988
1 MCRC-47279-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 4 th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47279 of 2024
JUGRAJ
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Durgesh Kumar Singrore - Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Nupur Dhamija - Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is first bail application filed on behalf of applicant under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. The applicant is in jail since 22.03.2024 in connection with Crime
No.20 of 2024 registered at P.S. Motinala District-Mandla for the offence
punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act.
3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 21.03.2024, applicant along with
his friend Satyanarayan and a woman, was traveling by car from Raipur to
Jabalpur. At around 7:00 a.m., they reached a point where a police vehicle
was blocking the road. Upon requesting that the vehicle be moved, Pradeep
Pandey, along with four to five other police personnel , allegedly assaulted
them, forcibly took them into custody, and committed gang rape on the
woman. A Zero FIR was registered on 17.08.2024 at Police Station Kotwali,
District- Fatehpur (U.P.). Thereafter, victim filed an application under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Chief Judicial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35988
2 MCRC-47279-2024
Magistrate, Fatehpur. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, an FIR was
registered against Pradeep Pandey and three other accused persons under
Sections 323, 342, 376D, 392, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is entitled
to be released on bail, as no prima facie case is made out against him under
Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act. The applicant has been in judicial
custody for more than seven months. Investigation has been completed, and
the charge sheet has already been filed. Two independent witnesses, namely
the seizure witnesses, have been examined before the trial Court and both
have turned hostile. It is also urged that one Shiv Mohan Shukla, a relative of
co-accused Satyanarayan Shukla, received a phone call on 31.03.2024 at 8:55
P.M., informing him about the applicant's arrest in connection with an
alleged incident of assault (marpeet) involving the police. The said call was
recorded and its details were retrieved using the E2PDF application.
Applicant is neither a habitual offender nor a previously convicted person.
No contraband or prohibited substance was recovered from his possession.
Hence, no offence under the NDPS Act is made out against him.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the police
have not complied with mandatory procedures under Sections 43, 50, 52A of
the NDPS Act, nor did they secure the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted
Officer as required by law and upheld in various judgments. It is also urged
that Section 37 of NDPS is not attracted. No contraband was recovered from
the applicant and applicant has been falsely implicated in the case by the
police. On above grounds, it is urged that applicant be released on bail.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35988
3 MCRC-47279-2024
6. Learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State on
the other hand had opposed the application.
7. Heard. Perused record of the case.
8. This Court has examined submissions of learned counsel for the
applicant in the light of documents available in the case diary as well as
documents filed by the applicant.
9. Having regard to evidence available on record with respect to the
offence as well as quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from applicant
and also looking to the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS, I deem it not
proper to release the applicant on bail.
10. Hence, application filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
vai
