Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shashi Raj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36774
1 MCRC-25610-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25610 of 2025
SHASHI RAJ
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sandeep Kumar Jain - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Amit Bhurrak - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section
483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail
relating to FIR/Crime No.274/2024 registered at Police Station-Khairha,
District-Shahdol (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 20 and
29 of NDPS Act, 1985. The applicant is in custody since 20.09.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is
innocent. As per the prosecution, applicant took lift from the so-called
vehicle bearing registration No.CG-16-CE-2529 and when he saw that the
police is chasing the vehicle, he requested the driver to stop the car but driver
did not stop the car, then he caught the steering and driver lost his balance
and vehicle went into the forest and the applicant was arrested.
3. In the present case, the other two co-accused persons were arrested
on the basis of memorandum recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act,
have been enlarged on bail and the case of this applicant is not different from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36774
2 MCRC-25610-2025
the co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail, hence, the
applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the
Investigating Officer has not followed the provisions laid down under
Section 42 of the NDPS Act and the sample drawn from the vehicle was
made homogeneous that is contrary to law.
5. Furthermore, counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the FSL
examination Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) test has not been conducted and to
support the contention, he has relied on the judgment of Nagender Shah Vs.
State of H.P., passed by the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court
reported in (2011) 1 CCR 226 on the point, under Section 50 NDPS Act be
followed in personal search.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further relied on the judgment
passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India (UOI)
and Others Vs. L.D. Balam Singh (2002) WLC 607 and Boota Singh and
Others Vs. State of Haryana, 2021 AIR (SC) 1913 and Rohan Singh Thakur
Vs. Union of India passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.41873/2022 vide
order dated 09.11.2022 has submitted that when the provision of Section 42
of the NDPS Act is not followed, the total proceedings shall be vitiated.
7. He has also relied on the judgments of State of Punjab Vs. Labh
Singh, 1996 CRI. L.J. 3996, the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh
i n Rahul Nanda and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in Cr.A.
No.234/2022 and the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
i n Navneet Jat Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in M.Cr.C.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36774
3 MCRC-25610-2025
No.19405/2022 dated 19.04.2022 on sampling and compliance of Section
52-A of NDPS Act and has submitted that looking to all these lacunae,
applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
8. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and
has submitted that the applicant was traveling in the vehicle in which the
contraband was being transported. The call details between Shashi Raj and
Sunny shows that they were in the constant touch with each other and 174 kg
of contraband ganja has been recovered from the vehicle, hence, the
applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
9. Heard the parties and perused the case diary.
10. From perusal of the case diary, it is clear that the information was
sent to S.I. Ramkaran Singh and in this regard the intimation was sent to
SDOP by a letter that is also submitted along with the case diary and to
support of this fact, that letter was received by the Office of the SDOP, a
separate panchnama was prepared and intimation was sent and from the
vehicle in the possession of the applicant 176 kg of ganja has been recovered
and by the Judicial Magistrate, the proceedings under Section 52-A of the
NDPS Act was done. The article has been sent for FSL examination and as
per the report, test of cannabis ganja was found positive and all other factors
are matter of evidence, at this stage, detailed enquiry is not required.
11. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case and
coupled with the fact that the ganja recovered from the possession of the
applicant is commercial quantity and Section 37 of the NDPS Act is
applicable in the case, therefore, the applicant failed to prove that he has not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36774
4 MCRC-25610-2025
committed any offence, hence, the bail application filed by the applicant is
dismissed.
12. Accordingly, M.Cr.C. stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
AT
